The numbers for overall drug use are similar to those for recent years, although the survey reported marginal declines in cocaine and methamphetamine use among young people. Among 18-to-25-year-olds, cocaine use dropped to 1.7%, down 23% from 2006, while meth use dropped to 0.4%, down about a third from 2006.

Drug control officials attributed the decline to increased interdiction and enforcement leading to higher prices. But the decline could reflect the generational learning curve typically observed in drug use patterns over time.

The declines in illegal stimulant use were countered by an increase in the non-medical use of prescription pain pills. According to the survey, 4.6% of young adults reported using pain pills for non-medical reasons last year, a 12% increase over 2006.

Marijuana remains by far the most commonly used illicit drug, with an estimated 14.4 million people reporting use in the previous month. That is about 5.8% of the population, down slightly from 6% in 2006.

Baby boomers moving into their fifties are taking their drug habits with them, according to the survey. Illicit drug use among those 55 to 59 more than doubled to 4.1% last year.

Despite millions of drug arrests and hundreds of billions of dollars spent enforcing drug prohibition in the past three decades, drug use levels remain roughly where they have been for the entire period.

Tags:

Related Articles

• On Speed: The Many Lives of Amphetamine
• Drugs in Our Culture: Vintage Film Covers 1960s Drug Use in School
• Venezuela, US Governments Spar Over Drug Fighting
• Should Philadelphia Be Excited About Its Big Drug Bust?
• Prison Term for 3 Atlanta Cops Who Killed Woman, 92 in Fake Drug Bust

How can the same substance be both demon drug and miracle cure? Science historian Nicolas Rasmussen of the University of New South Wales in Sydney provides some answers to that question – and much more – in “On Speed: The Many Lives of Amphetamine.” What Rasmussen is really interested in is the interaction between the pharmaceutical industry, the medical profession, and broader social forces afoot in Western culture, and amphetamines make a fascinating, if surprising, vehicle for his meditations.

As Rasmussen tells us, amphetamine was first tested on a human on June 3, 1929, when Los Angeles chemist Gordon Alles injected himself with his new concoction. As Rasmussen’s reproduction of Alles’ testing notes put it early in the experience, “Feeling of well-being.” Later, he reported “a rather sleepless night” where his “mind seemed to race from one subject to another.” Still, Alles reported feeling fairly well the next morning.

Pharmaceutical companies had a new product. Now, they had to figure out something to use it for. First off the mark was the Benzedrine inhaler, marketed for relief of nasal congestion. But by the 1940s, amphetamine tablets by the millions were being used by soldiers on all sides of World War II as energy- and morale-enhancers. Within a few more years, amphetamines were being widely prescribed for an ever-increasing array of “diseases,” including obesity and neurotic depression. By the late 1960s some 5 million Americans were gobbling down amphetamines under a doctor’s supervision, and another 2 or 3 million were using them as “thrill pills” outside the bounds of medical practice.

While Rasmussen provides lots of detail on the marketing strategies of various pharmaceutical companies, the needs of doctors to deal with patients complaining of low grade depression, malaise, lack of energy, and obesity, and the increasing clamor of Americans for pills that would make them feel more energetic, gregarious, and productive – oh, what All-American desires! – what is most fascinating for students of American drug policy is the way his narrative lays the blame for the creation of subsequent amphetamine abuse problems squarely at the feet of market-hungry pill makers, pill-pushing doctors, and, of course, the American military, which exposed millions of GIs to the pleasures – and dangers – of speed. But at some point, he argues, the “push” from drug companies and doctors was complemented by a “pull” from consumers who developed a liking for the drug and its stimulant effects.

As Rasmussen notes, a thrill-seeking speed subculture emerged almost immediately, beginning with University of Minnesota students in the 1930s who were given Benzedrine inhalers in clinical trials, decided they liked them, and took them home to party and study with. By the late 1940s, some of those millions of GIs exposed to amphetamines during the war had continued using speed and were bringing awareness of it to the general population. By the 1950s, Beat writers like Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs were enshrining it in a nascent counterculture, and by the 1960s, as legal amphetamine production reached record highs, speed abuse was identified as a serious problem, not only by doctors, researchers, law enforcement, and fear-mongering politicians, but also by the counterculture itself.

At the beginning of the 1970s, the federal government intervened, severely crimping the speed supply and – voilà! – the illicit speed industry took off. As Rasmussen puts it: “Naturally, once the national supply of pharmaceutical amphetamine was sharply cut by federal action after 1971, demand for home-made speed grew, driving down quality and strengthening the position of the motorcycle gangs. Making a popular drug illegal, without reducing demand, only spurred the development of organized crime to supply consumers – with inferior and often dangerous products. It was the same with alcohol in the days of Prohibition.”

In other words, meet the progenitors of today’s meth lab cookers, thanks to prohibitionist actions. And although I don’t recall Rasmussen mentioning it, the restrictions on legal amphetamine production came shortly before the reemergence of cocaine as a popular recreational drug in the late 1970s and 1980s. Ironically, amphetamine’s trajectory from miracle cure to demon drug mirrored cocaine’s earlier but similar trajectory. For some, amphetamines had replaced cocaine; now, perhaps, cocaine was replacing amphetamine.

These days, methamphetamine is a demon drug, but its close relatives in the amphetamine family, amphetamine-type stimulants differing from meth by only the addition or subtraction of an atom or two from the basic amphetamine molecule, are once again wildly popular at the doctor’s office and on the street. The roughly 2.5 billion tablets of amphetamine-type stimulants such as Ritalin (for ADD and ADHD), Preludin (obesity), and Redux (ditto) now being prescribed annually is the same amount of speed being produced medically as at the height of the “amphetamine epidemic” of the 1960s. Ten million Americans are gobbling speed as you read these words, more than did so at the height of the “epidemic.”

With widespread use of amphetamine-type stimulants, we can expect an increase in unhappy side effects, Rasmussen predicts, ranging from dependence to amphetamine psychosis, as well as the subsequent development of a market for “downers.” In the past heroin and barbiturates played that role; now, he suggests, prescription pain pills will fill the need.

What is needed is not only more law enforcement to deal with the illegal meth trade, but harm reduction measures for amphetamine users and means to reduce demand, Rasmussen concludes. And more control over the pharmaceutical industry, including stronger restrictions on marketing and promotion, as well as tighter controls on the role of pharmaceutical companies in doing medical research for marketing purposes.

“On Speed: The Many Lives of Amphetamine” is a fascinating book for students of drug policy and drug use in the broader social, economic, and political context of the West, and the United States in particular. It is most helpful in aiding one to think clearly and broadly about how patterns of drug use emerge, the institutional factors behind them, and the way we respond to them. And it is a clarion call for reform of the US pharmaceutical industry, as well as a riveting social history of speed.

About the author: Phillip S. Smith is a  writer/editor for Drug War Chronicle

Courtesy: Drug War Chronicle

Tags:

Related Articles

• Prescription Pills Up, Cocaine And Meth Down, Marijuana Holds Steady
• Venezuela, US Governments Spar Over Drug Fighting
• Opposition to Plan Merida Emerges in Mexico
• Hawaii’s Big Island to Vote on Lowest Law Enforcement Priority Initiative
• Drugs in Our Culture: Vintage Film Covers 1960s Drug Use in School

In the study, Tackling drug markets and distribution networks in the UK: a review of the recent literature, the researchers reported that British drug markets are “extremely resilient” and that increasing seizures of drugs had had little impact at the street level. Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on drug enforcement, “there is remarkably little evidence of its effectiveness in disrupting markets and reducing availability,” the authors concluded.

“We were struck by just how little evidence there is to show that the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on UK enforcement each year has made a sustainable impact and represents value for money, and no published material to allow comparisons of different enforcement approaches,” said Tim McSweeney, one of the authors of the review.

“All enforcement agencies aim to reduce drug harms and most have formed local partnerships to do this, but they still tend to be judged by measures of traditional supply-side activity such as seizure rates,” said the commission’s David Blakey. “This is a pity as it is very difficult to show that increasing drug seizures actually leads to less drug-related harm. Of course, drug dealers must be brought to justice, but we should recognize and encourage the wider role that the police and other law enforcement officials can play in reducing the impact of drug markets on our communities.”

Still, the authors of the report suggested that law enforcement does have a role to play, particularly in focusing on drug markets with the most “collateral damage,” such as gang violence, human trafficking, and drug-related criminality. Police need to work closely with local communities, the authors said, as well as recognizing the unintended and unanticipated consequences of enforcement measures, such as a “crackdown” that merely moves dealers to nearby neighborhoods.

Courtesy: Drug War Chronicle

Tags:

Related Articles

• Maryland SWAT Raid Leaves Two Dogs Dead, a Small Town Mayor’s Family Traumatized
• DEA Seizes Medical Marijuana Seized By Seattle Police
• Louisiana Lawmen Play Fast And Loose with the Constitution
• Latest Illinois Report Prompts Civil Rights Groups to Call for End to Consent Searches
• Feds Score Another Conviction Against a California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Operator