Cannabis: the slippery slope
Is cannabis use in young people the gateway to hard drugs? Yes, says Ann Stoker of the National Drug Prevention Alliance.
"One could draw a graph showing the increased use of cannabis, which will exactly mirror the escalation in the use of cocaine by young people,"she wrote in a letter to The Times on Monday 8 March. She was commenting on a Times article of 3 March, "Celebrity users made cocaine all the rage, say MPs" which cited British Crime Survey statistics. But was she right?
In terms of long term trends at least, the answer is no. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/09 Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2008/9 British Crime Survey, shows that despite a recent small increase in young people's reported cannabis use, the trend since 2001 has been down. See graph, below.
As The Times reported, however, cocaine use among young people has risen since 1996, as the statistical bulletin reported. See graph 2, below:
Ms Stoker also cited a now 35 year-old study by Kandel et al, Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use. This did indeed report that marijuana was "...a crucial step on the way to other illicit drugs".
But it also found that that legal drugs, specifically alcohol and cigarettes, were "necessary intermediates", and that "whereas 27 per cent of high school students who smoke and drink progress to marihuana within a 5- to 6-month follow-up period, only 2 per cent of those who have not used any legal substance do so".
If the latest BCS data undermines the 'gateway hypothesis', experts remain divided on other grounds.
"The role of cannabis in the gateway pattern of drug use remains controversial because of the difficulty of excluding the hypothesis that the gateway pattern is due to the common characteristics of those who use cannabis and other drugs" write Wayne Hall, Louisa Degenhardt and George Patton in Adolescent addiction: epidemiology, assessment and treatment [Chapter 4 Cannabis abuse and dependence, p127, editor Cecilia A. Essau, Academic Press, 2008].
christopher crossman (not verified) wrote,
Sun, 14/03/2010 - 10:44
as posted before, unless the research guidelines haver changed, the British Crime Survey does not monitor actual crime in the community- only REPORTED (to the police) crime.
Darryl Bickler (not verified) wrote,
Sun, 14/03/2010 - 12:42
Let's get this straight, alcohol and tobacco are not legal drugs. No drug is exempt from the purview of the MDA firstly, secondly no object can ever be ilegal or illegal, you mean that human activities connected to the object are regulated. See Facebook Group 'Illegal Drugs Do Not Exist'.
We should not get into a frenzy about cocaine use anyway - the problem with this is that we end up accepting that certain drugs are misused by taking them. This is not the case, we should focus on drug misuse, and not drug use.
CL (not verified) wrote,
Mon, 15/03/2010 - 10:40
CC - The BCS attempts to capture people's actual experience of crime, not just that which is reported to the police. In doing so, the intention is to avoid spurious changes from changes in the way police record crime and to include those crimes not reported to the police. Both sets of estimates are published. (Further details on Home Office website.)
Hamish Birchall (not verified) wrote,
Mon, 15/03/2010 - 15:30
My thanks to Christopher Crossman and CL for their helpful and well made points. Thanks also to Darryl Bickler for deconstructing the expression 'legal drugs' and for drawing attention to the Facebook group 'Illegal drugs do not exist'. I would point out, however, that 'legal drugs' was the expression used by Kandel in the abstract of his 1975 paper cited by Ms Stoker (see link below):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/190/4217/912
Darryl Bickler (not verified) wrote,
Mon, 15/03/2010 - 17:34
Hamish, I can see the barely preferable expression 'illicit' drugs in there and the entirely non-sensical 'legal drugs'. Most people use this legal/illegal drug expression, it's just in the UK especially it is very wrong as we should expect regulation under the law we have. If we are going to make progress, then people simply must not fall into this trap of using the deceitful language of prohibition!
Hamish Birchall (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 16/03/2010 - 07:46
Darryl, I believe you are right and that the expression 'legal drugs' is somewhat misleading. But its popular use, or misuse, has clearly endured for decades, and not only in connection with drugs. To change this we would need a more accurate expression that equally catchy and memorable. Any ideas?
Darryl (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 16/03/2010 - 09:02
Yes, we were sold the lie quite some time ago, it does seem quite popular to continue the theme of confusing the subject of moral agency - we have had the evil knives issue for example. The main gripe is the normalisation of prohibition as a true reflection of what the law requires - these items are supposedly undeniably, intrinsically and eternally illegal, whereas they of course are not. Neither according to common sense, and the objects and purpose of the primary legislation (which gives rise to powers to make control orders / regulations) should they be prohibited; for to do so is to avoid the essence of curbing drug MISUSE, and is an anathema to the notion of proportionality of interference.
In formal discussions we should use the expression controlled drugs, and at some point make it clear that this is the legal term, but that there is a paradox inherrent in the word, certainly if you consider that using the common parlance of the word, there is no control whatsoever with controlled drugs. Conversely there is some control over non-controlled drugs. Somewhat cynically perhaps it was suggested that 'legal drugs' could be changed to boring and harmful drugs, whilst 'illegal drugs' could be changed to effective drugs - but let's not pursue that!
As legal status is arbitrary, we might as well just describe controlled drugs as 'drugs with criminalised users', these being the subject of the War on some people who use some Drugs. However, of course drug use is not illegal (save for the case of opium, so it is also not a perfect expression). So, we mighty need a new words and expressions to avoid long explanations - suggestions welcome.
Paul D. Waite (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 16/03/2010 - 14:39
@CL
> the British Crime Survey does not monitor actual crime in the community- only REPORTED (to the police) crime.. (Further details on Home Office website.)
From the Home Office website (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html):
> The BCS measures the amount of crime in England and Wales... by asking people about crimes they have experienced in the last year. The BCS includes crimes which are not reported to the police
Obviously, there are crimes that the BCS misses out on (I don’t think they survey businesses, for example), but you seem to have it a bit backwards.
Paul D. Waite (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 16/03/2010 - 14:42
@christopher crossman:
> as posted before, unless the research guidelines haver changed, the British Crime Survey does not monitor actual crime in the community- only REPORTED (to the police) crime.
I think you’ve got this a bit backwards. From the Home Office website (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html):
> The BCS measures the amount of crime in England and Wales... by asking people about crimes they have experienced in the last year. The BCS includes crimes which are not reported to the police
Obviously, there are crimes that the BCS misses out on (I don’t think they survey businesses, for example), but I think you’re confusing the BCS with reported crime statistics.
CL (not verified) wrote,
Fri, 19/03/2010 - 10:01
PDW
You seem to be attributing CC's comment to me. I can't otherwise see how you can agree with me that the BCS captures peoples' experiences of crime and then say I "have it a bit backwards". (You say the same thing of CC - I can't see how we can both have it a bit backwards when we're asserting the opposite things.)
I agree with your point about crimes missed by the BCS. I'm not aware of a survey capturing businesses' experience of crime and the same goes for people not resident in private households.
janet quigley (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 31/03/2010 - 12:39
The term 'legal drugs' is well understood by most people, and is neither ambiguous nor misleading. Alcohol and tobacco can be used legally by adults and are drugs, as indeed are tea and coffee. Please try to stick to the subject instead of offering us misunderstandings of how language works as if that somehow contributes to the discussion.
robert askew (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 29/06/2010 - 19:40
i believe it is wrong for cannabis to be illegal. in previous decades there have been huge numbers of deaths from alcohol overdose, which have been brought down by simple government advertising and education. instead of warning young people of the punishment they will suffer if they break a law, we should allow them the choice, but strongly advise them to think before getting involved in the drug.
robert askew (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 29/06/2010 - 19:41
by the way, i'm 15 years old.
Andy (not verified) wrote,
Fri, 26/11/2010 - 17:38
Cigarettes are a gateway to cannabis smoking I think Ms Stoker will find. That's what I smoked first. If you're a cigarette smoker then the health issues of smoking a joint do really pale into insignificance.
Why cite a 35 year old study? Because it's the only one that supports your views?
Pure weed is the only way :)
Cheers,
Andy
http://www.dope-smoker.co.uk