Drug Survey from ABC's Hungry Beast

An interesting survey was commissioned by the ABC TV show, Hungry Beast. I have included some brief technical details and the questions. Go to the Hungry Beast website for the answers.

Enjoy.

Drugs Survey

Conducted for Hungry Beast 

February 2010 

Aimee Whiting 

Research Consultant 

McNair Ingenuity Research 

Level 4, 270 Pacific Hwy  

Crows Nest NSW 2065 

The questionnaire consisted of closed-ended questions about using illegal drugs and people’s attitudes to illegal drugs in Australian society.

Overall, 1008 adults in Australia were surveyed via an online survey between 25th February and 1st March 2010. 

According to Dr Jon Krosnick of Stamford University, a leading analyst of comparative research design, in a paper published in December 2008 (National Surveys Via RDD Telephone Interviewing vs. the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality), online respondent can be more accurate and more honest than when responding to many other survey methods. A sample size of 1000 means a margin of error of +/-1.4 – +/-3.10 at the 95% confidence level. When looking at sub-samples, the margin of error is larger.  

QUESTIONS

   

Q1. To the best of your knowledge, have any of your friends ever tried or used illegal drugs? 

Q2. Have you personally ever tried or used illegal drugs? 

Q3. Have you ever taken or used a prescription drug that was not prescribed for you? 

Q4. Which of the following are reasons why you have tried or used illegal drugs or illegally obtained prescription drugs?  

(please select all that apply) 

a. I took it accidentally/didn’t know I was taking it 

b. my friends were using it, so I thought I’d try it 

c. to be part of a group 

d. because my friends pressured me to use it 

e. to see what it was like / curiosity 

f. to have fun 

g. to help overcome shyness and make social interaction easier 

h. to stay awake 

i. to get to sleep 

j. because I was feeling down/unhappy 

k. to help cope with life 

l. to ease physical pain 

m. to get out of it 

n. because the drug was there 

o. to ease boredom 

p. because I tried it before and I liked it 

q. because I was addicted 

r. it seemed like a good idea at the time 

s. for creative inspiration 

t. to enhance sexual experiences 

u. to enhance other experiences 

v. for spiritual reasons or seeking enlightenment 

w. for research purposes 

x. Other (Specify)________________________ 

Q5. In the last 5 years have you used: (please select all that apply) 

 a. Marijuana? 

 b. Ecstasy (MDMA)? 

 c. Speed (Meth-Amphetamine)? 

 d. Cocaine?  

 e. LSD (Acid)? 

 f. Mephedrone (Meow, “Plant Food”)? 

 g. Any other illegal drug? 

 h. None  

Q6. In the last year have you used: (display only those selected in Q5 and ‘none of the 

above’, please select all that apply) 

 a. Marijuana? 

 b. Ecstasy (MDMA)? 

 c. Speed (Meth-Amphetamine)? 

 d. Cocaine?  

 e. LSD (Acid)? 

 f. Mephedrone (Meow, “Plant Food”)? 

 g. Any other illegal drug? 

 h. None  

Q7. Before now, have you ever considered the effect that your consumption of illegal drugs might have: 

a. on the environment? 

b. on the lives of people involved in the production and supply of that drug? 

Q8. Please rate your agreement with the following statements: 

People who try or use (but do not sell) illegal drugs should have a criminal record 

People who try or use (but do not sell) illegal drugs should go to prison 

Government policies dealing with illegal drug use are effective 

Police resources should be applied to more serious crimes than pursuing people for trying or using small amounts of illegal drugs 

Some illegal drugs cause more harm than others 

The following questions are about decriminalising illegal drug use in Australia. 

By decriminalise,  we mean a situation in which the production, importation, distribution and sale of large amounts of drugs would still be illegal, but the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use would not attract criminal penalties such as prison or a criminal record. 

Q9. If illegal drug use was decriminalised: 

a. Do you think our society would be worse off? 

b. Do you think people would be more likely to try or use drugs? 

c. Would you personally be more likely to try or use drugs? 

d. Do you think people would use drugs more often? 

e. Would you personally use drugs more often? 

Q10. For each of the following drugs, please indicate whether you are in favour or not in favour of that drug being decriminalised for small amounts for personal use.  

Reminder: By decriminalise,  we mean a situation in which the production, importation, distribution and sale of large amounts of drugs would still be illegal, but the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use would not attract criminal penalties such as prison or a criminal record. 

Marijuana 

Ecstasy (MDMA) 

Speed (Meth-Amphetamine) 

Cocaine 

LSD 

Heroin 

All illegal drugs 

No illegal drugs 

Drug Potency Myths & the ABC ... Again!

Another Zero Tolerance/Prohibitionists lie has been exposed.

A recent article reputes the myth that the newer, stronger cannabis (i.e. ‘Skunk’) is now more dangerous than it was because THC levels have increased. It’s amazing simple really ... If cannabis is stronger, you need to use less.  Just like if you need 12 cans of beer to get drunk, you would only need 6 cans with a higher alcohol content. The argument that cannabis is stronger than what our parents used just means less consumption. Myth dispelled, hysteria over, more junk science in the trash. 

And of course there's hash. It's THC levels are not just 9.6% but about 50% and that has been around for as long as I can remember. They conveniently forgot about that.

And what is it with the so called, ‘respectable’ media of late? This is the second time in a few days that the ‘respectable’ Australian media have chopped up a story that dispels some drug/alcohol myths which have bombarded us for the last year or two. Instead of celebrating the truth amongst the mountains of lies, propaganda and drug/alcohol hysteria, some media outlets have been complicit in the shonky practice of cherry picking information and manipulating the public. 

Only last week the ABC joined the ranks of other dodgy media groups with a radio report that was so far from reality that it was scary. They declared that marijuana is no longer a soft drug and a new report proved it. Except the report was a sham that even a Daily Telegraph reader would cringe at. The report claimed that 15 men who smoked over 5 joints a day for 10 years had damage to their brain. And this was the basis on which the ABC reported that cannabis was much more dangerous than we thought. Yeah, it’s hysterical. With that sort of abuse, I am surprised there wasn’t more damage and if anything, the findings proved that it took massive levels of cannabis abuse to cause minimal damage. A joint is about the equivalent of 3-5 bongs which means these stoners were having 18-25 bongs a day! Jeepers, does this sound like the average casual dope smoker. pffft. They were hard core smokers who makes up only a tiny fraction of marijuana users.

Now the ABC has taken an Associated Press article about a press release from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and removed sections that contradict the report. Read the two articles below and you will find that the Fairfax publications have included the whole AP article but the ABC website has edited out important comments from a psychology professor at the State University of New York that proved otherwise. The original article indicates that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy have kept up their usual anti-drugs rhetoric and have mislead the public. The ABC though have given the story the completel opposite spin by only including the propaganda that the article disputes. Really sloppy stuff. The ABC article will undoubtedly be used by prohibitionists and the Zero Tolerance twits as evidence for their own selfish causes. The real story though from the SMH and The Age is a huge slap in the face to the propaganda campaigners and will finally put to rest another prohibitionist lie.

Marijuana is very potent and very dangerous stuff. It is a far cry from the mild stuff us hippies in the 60s used to toke on. It is many times more powerful, and extremely dangerous. It is much stronger because of higher THC levels (the “high” producing element of cannabis). With increased potency comes increased health risks.

Because today’s marijuana may be as much as 15 times stronger than that smoked in the 1960s, it is much more dangerous.

-Bill Muehlenberg. Culture Watch

Thankfully, according to a 2007 report by NDARC, the majority of Australians are now more street-wise about the increased potency of present day cannabis.

-Jo Baxter. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

The evidence is that fewer children are even experimenting with cannabis, which is a far more potent drug today than it was when Nimbin's hippies were young.

-Miranda Devine.  Sydney Morning Herald

Sydney Morning Herald / The Age

Drug Potency Doubles

June 12, 2008

Marijuana potency increased last year to the highest level in more than 30 years, posing greater health risks to people who may view the drug as harmless, a new US report says.

The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 to 2007.

It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 per cent last year, compared with 8.75 per cent in 2006.

The 9.6 per cent level represents more than a doubling of marijuana potency since 1983, when it averaged just under 4 per cent.

"Today's report makes it more important than ever that we get past outdated, anachronistic views of marijuana," said John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. He cited baby boomer parents who might have misguided notions that the drug contains the weaker potency levels of the 1970s.

"Marijuana potency has grown steeply over the past decade, with serious implications in particular for young people," Walters said. He cited the risk of psychological, cognitive and respiratory problems, and the potential for users to become dependent on drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

While the drug's potency may be rising, marijuana users generally adjust to the level of potency and smoke it accordingly, said Mitch Earleywine, who teaches psychology at the State University of New York in Albany and serves as an adviser for marijuana advocacy groups.

"Stronger cannabis leads to less inhaled smoke," he said.

The White House office attributed the increases in marijuana potency to sophisticated growing techniques that drug traffickers are using at sites in the United States and Canada.

A report from the office last month found that a teenager who has been depressed in the past year was more than twice as likely to have used marijuana than teenagers who have not reported being depressed - 25 per cent compared with 12 per cent. The study said marijuana use increased the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 per cent.

"The increases in marijuana potency are of concern since they increase the likelihood of acute toxicity, including mental impairment," said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which funded the University of Mississippi study.

"Particularly worrisome is the possibility that the more potent THC might be more effective at triggering the changes in the brain that can lead to addiction," Dr Volkow said.

But there's no data showing that a higher potency in marijuana leads to more addiction, Dr Earleywine said, and marijuana's withdrawal symptoms are mild at best.

"Mild irritability, craving for marijuana and decreased appetite - I mean those are laughable when you talk about withdrawal from a drug. Caffeine is worse."

The project analysed data on 62,797 cannabis samples, 1302 hashish samples, and 468 hash oil samples obtained primarily from seizures by law enforcement agencies in 48 states since 1975.

ABC News

Pot Potency Climbing Rapidly: US Officials

June 13, 2008

Marijuana sold in the United States today is on average more than twice as strong as it was 25 years ago, increasing the threat of serious mental impairment in users, US drug policy officials say.

The average level of THC - marijuana's psychoactive ingredient - in seized drug samples is 9.6 per cent, compared to just under 4 per cent in 1983, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

And the highest THC level found in a sample of pot measured in recent months was an astounding 37.2 per cent, according to the research from the University of Mississippi's 32-year-old Potency Monitoring Project.

"The increases in marijuana potency are of concern since they increase the likelihood of acute toxicity, including mental impairment," Nora Volkow, director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a statement.

"Particularly worrisome is the possibility that the more potent THC might be more effective at triggering the changes in the brain that can lead to addiction; however, more research is needed to establish this link between higher THC potency and higher addiction risk," she said.

White House drug czar John Walters warned that the higher potency make marijuana a greater health threat than in the past.

"Baby boomer parents who still think marijuana is a harmless substance need to look at the facts.

"Marijuana potency has grown steeply over the past decade, with serious implication in particular for young people, who may be not only at increased risk for various psychological conditions, cognitive deficits and respiratory problems, but are also at significantly higher risk for developing dependency on other drugs."

Junk Science, Cannabis and the ABC

It’s not everyday I find a blog with an article that I wish I had written. The Kings Cross Times wrote a piece about a tragic case of drug hysteria that should be read by everyone. 

ABC Joins Uncritical Panic Over Cannabis

"Psychiatrists have known for years that there is nothing soft about the drug cannabis," gushed the reporter headlining her story on the ABC's AM program this morning.

She was talking about a study of 15 men who had smoked at least five joints a day for ten years. The men showed a shrinkage of certain parts of their brains and, not surprisingly, had reduced memory performance. The results were compared to minor brain injury trauma (like boxers get, legally, all the time).

This seems typical of recent output from the prohibition industry – reductive research setting out to find harm (otherwise they don't get funded), using a tiny sample and guaranteeing headlines from uncritical media, resulting in professional kudos. It creates alarm in the uninformed public and is used by prohibitionists to justify their position, no-one apparently noticing that all this drug abuse demonstrates that prohibition is not working.

Five joints a day for ten years might be similar to drinking two bottles of vodka a day or perhaps eating ten carrots a day, both of which would probably cause harm to the abuser. This does not justify gushing headlines that carrots 'are not a soft drug'.

And where would they find 15 guys who consumed that much pot? They must be very unusual people, almost certainly among the 4.5% of the population who are unemployed. I'll bet they also smoke tobacco and drink, although the researchers say they matched the control group for other factors. I would guess they have other precursor problems, and I'll bet this minor study had not scanned their brains before the ten-year period, either. And how did they conclude, from this atypical sample, that 'any amount' of smoking put the person at risk?

And now the researcher, Marat Yucel from Melbourne University, is on 702's Morning Show trotting out a lone 20-year-old ex-smoker, who was not even in the study but is part of a tiny minority who had a bad time on it. Standard tactics. But it will look good on Yucel's CV.

At least AM quoted Gino Vumbaca from ADCA who cautioned about the small sample used in the study.

Ah, Yucel just admitted that all the smokers in the sample were unemployed and the control group wasn't. And now he's COMPLETELY lost it, comparing the occasional tobacco smoker who lives for a hundred years to the 90% plus of cannabis smokers who don't experience significant problems. Host Deborah Cameron missed that glaring fallacy, though.

Meanwhile the potentially $120 million worth of ice lost by police (see previous post) remains out there on the black market and the media are ignoring this massive failure of prohibition. Their news sense is definitely lost in the moral panic.

-Kings Cross Times:  ABC Joins Uncritical Panic Over Cannabis

One reader provided a link to a New Scientist article that backed up the Kings Cross Times article.

A Spliff Test for Science

It's the oldest but most important scientific question when two phenomena appear related: does one cause the other, vice versa, or is the apparent relationship pure coincidence? The question came up again this week when an Australian study demonstrated that 15 men who had all smoked marijuana heavily for at least 10 years had shrunken brain structures compared to those in non-users.

So was it the cannabis that on average shrank their hippocampuses by 12% and their amygdalas by 7%? Or were these same regions small to start with in these men, and if so, was it something that played a part in their strong liking for cannabis?

Certainly, both these regions are heavily affected by cannabis because they are both unusually rich in molecular receptors for delta-9-tetrahydrocannibol (THC), the psychoactive component in weed. The hippocampus is vital for storing memories and for the perception of time, and marijuana is known to affect both. Likewise, the amygdala is the brain's "fear" centre, and plays a key role in whether we react aggressively to events. Again, this fits with the observation that cannabis users sometimes develop paranoia.

To come back to the Australia study, is it equally possible that such prolonged exposure to cannabis wears out and shrinks these cannabis-sensitive regions? Again, we're back to cause and effect.

The only way to resolve it once and for all (as pointed out by the Australian researchers themselves at the end of their paper) would be to have brain scans of people before and after they began smoking cannabis. That way, you could see whether these regions did actually shrink the more cannabis they were exposed to. Or whether some people with unusually small regions at the outset turned out to be more attracted to the weed.

Unfortunately, a study to find out by deliberately giving cannabis to volunteers then following them for many years to see if their brains shrank would be unethical. Ethical comparisons could only be done if scans had been performed randomly on a wide population of children and kept as a general resource for researchers. If any of the scanned children subsequently became heavy dope users, it would be easy to check back and monitor whether brain regions were changing size. But obtaining the scans would cost a huge amount of money without any guarantee that it would yield any findings of interest.

So for now, we simply don't know for sure whether cannabis is genuinely changing brain architecture. And the same dilemmas apply to study of all addictions. Which is why some researchers contacted by New Scientist cautioned against sensationalising the Australian results.

"You must be very careful looking at this paper in isolation," says Tim Williams, who studies addiction at the University of Bristol. "With this kind of study, you can't tease out cause and effect." Williams also pointed out that a study in 2005 of long-term cannabis users by researchers at Harvard Medical School found that there was no effect on the size of their hippocampuses. "I'm surprised the Australians found an effect where others haven't," he adds.

The take-home message is clear! Be cautious about concluding too much from addiction studies which might confuse cause and effect. Yes, it could be down to the drug, but equally, it could be down to your pre-existing brain architecture, and the effect of that on your personality.

-Andy Coghlan, New Scientist reporter

The comments from some readers summed up the issue.

The fact that this study is at odds with other studies that don't show shrunken hippocampuses seems to suggests that the study can't be conclusive - but should be further investiagted.

Critics are rightly pointing-out that a correlation isn't the same as causal.

Further, critics are citing (see other NS article commentary) possible overlooked effects of nicotine and carbon monoxide on subjects brain structure. 

Do Australian cannabis smokers smoke more tobacco with their cannabis? ...and could this explain the variation from other countries studies? Given that nicotine has been identified as a destroying brain tissue it's possible. 

The effects of THC on brain structure needs to be teased out - with all types of groups (cannabis eating only group, non tobacco cannabis smokers etc) - with before and afters. Yes, it's hard to create that.

...And an honest researcher would say that it's very hard to come to any conclusions without such a comprehensive study. So was this politicized science?

-By  Anonymous 

and this.

Did they control for alcohol use/abuse, other drugs, environmental factors, or genetics? If not, then this study is next to meaningless. The ridiculously small sample size doesn't help either, statistically speaking.

Even if it were true, what percentage of regular pot smokers smokes 5 joints a day for 10 years or more? If pot does affect the size of certain parts of the brain, do those effects disappear after usage stops? These are the things that a real study would have looked into.

-By Ozzy OG Kush

Why Christopher Pyne is Dangerous / R18+ Games - Opinion Beats Evidence Again

In a somewhat biased report from the ABC's 7:30 Report a few years back, the comments from Christopher Pyne show exactly why research based polices need to be implemented. Pyne dictates policies based on his own moral beliefs along with misgivings that marijuana is evil but alcohol is somehow OK . Dr. Alex Wodak who has spent his life dealing with drug and alcohol addiction has the qualifications needed to give genuine advice. Christopher Pyne on the other hand, is as thick as a piece of 4"2 redwood pine who's only term of reference is the flawed zero tolerance strategy. The statement below would have to go down as the most hypocritical gaff I have ever read.

ALEX WODAK: 

"Under the current system, of course, all the most vulnerable people in the country can roll up to any criminal and corrupt policeman that they know of and buy the drug and no questions asked about age or are you pregnant, or do you have a mental illness or whatever. If we had a taxed and regulated system, not only would we be able to have warnings on the packages, but we'd also be able to regulate the people who obtain cannabis from the regulated outlets". 

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

"I don't accept that. I don't think you should regulate poison because it would be easier to manage it if you did. This is a poison and it's destroying our young people. It's affecting their mental health and the idea that governments should somehow get involved in it, regulate it, tax it, control the strength of it and then spend that money that's raised in taxation as though it was any other kind of revenue raising tool, I think, is an abomination".

Isn't this how the government treats alcohol regulation now? Incredible!

R18+ Games - Opinion Beat Evidence Again

First of all, I am not a gamer. I am though, an adult. This gives me the right to watch and do what I please within the law and when someone decides for me what I can't watch or do, I need a reason. It seems so often now the reason is because someone with the power doesn't think it's appropriate because of their opinion ... facts, evidence and research de damned.

South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is opposed to R18+ ratings for games because he wants to 

"protect children from harmful material". 

Amazingly his opinion is not wavering even though research has found that the average age of Australian gamers is 28 and over 50 per cent of gamers are over 18. Also in 2005, a survey found 88 per cent of Australians supported an R18+ classification for games.

I am sure even the tonks from the right would agree considering they hate governments telling them what they can & can't do and that violence is such a part of their ideology.