Cheerleading more dangerous than MDMA- MAPS Study

[radiometer]

Check this article's statistics out. Anyone who isn't already on the MAPS email list should get on it.



Today's Topics:

1. ECSTASY and Cheerleading: A Basic Risk Comparison (MAPS Forum)
2. Carl Ruck's new book: The Hidden Wrold (troberts38@comcast.net)
3. inquiry on ayahuasca (troberts38@comcast.net)
4. mystical trends in pre-20th century Western literature
(Tim Hardwick)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:32:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: MAPS Forum <noreply@gaia.maps.org>
Subject: MAPS: ECSTASY and Cheerleading: A Basic Risk Comparison
To: maps_forum@maps.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0705310032270.12551-100000@gaia.maps.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

maps volume xvi number 3 Winter 2006-7
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v16...g_ecstasy.html
By Jag Davies

A January 8, 2006 Boston Globe article, The Most Dangerous Sport in School,
reported on several instances of catastrophic, sometimes deadly, cheerleading
accidents. Apparently, like taking prescription medications, living in a
polluted city, and driving a car, recreational sports such as cheerleading are
activities that our society views as having serious, but acceptable, risks.
How, then, does this compare historically to the risks society deems as
unacceptable, such as those associated with the recreational use of Ecstasy? I
did some research to find out.

I focused on Emergency Room (ER) visit data, the most common indicator of cost
to public health. For example, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network
(DAWN), in 1994nine years after MDMA was criminalized, but the first for which
data is available from SAMHSA there were 253 ER visits as a result of Ecstasy
use in the US. Meanwhile, according to the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (USCPSC), in 1994 there were 15,792 ER visits as a result of
participation in organized cheerleading. By that measure, in 1994 cheerleading
was 62 times more of a threat to our nations public health than Ecstasy use.
Keep in mind that most users dont know whether their Ecstasy is pure MDMA, so
these statistics reflect the risks of using unregulated black-market Ecstasy,
which often contains other substances and sometimes does not even contain MDMA.


Cheerleading Ecstasy Risk Comparison Chart

In 2001, when past-year Ecstasy use reached its peak, the total number of
pastyear cheerleaders (3.8 million) and Ecstasy users (3.25 million) were
relatively similar1. Still, past-year participation in organized cheerleading
was four and a half times more likely than pastyear use of Ecstasy to have
caused a medical crisis necessitating a visit to ER.

To look at those numbers another way, in 2001, one out of every 152 organized
cheerleading participants sought ER treatment, while only one of out of every
585 past-year Ecstasy users sought ER treatment. Note that this data does not
account for the differences between users; a cheerleader who practices daily
and an Ecstasy user who takes the drug once a month are both counted here
simply as participants. It is also worth noting that a study of ER admissions
in the Netherlands found that most patients (89%) with an Ecstasy-related
complaint did not require treatment beyond the initial visit with a doctor2.

In 2003, DAWN implemented a new methodology for calculating drug-related ER
visits, and my estimate of 4,442 for that year is based on the only data
available, an interim estimate from July- December 2003 of 2,221. In 2004, once
the new DAWN had been implemented, their estimate for Ecstasy-related ER visits
nearly doubled to 8,621, much higher than the previous high of 5,542 in 2001,
but still a far cry from the whopping 28,414 cheerleading-related ER visits
that year. DAWN recommends not comparing the old DAWN to the new DAWN3, but,
taking this into consideration, the old DAWN is still valuable data, in fact
the only data, available for 1994-2003.

Just Say No to Cheerleading?

Do these statistics mean that cheerleading should join Ecstasy in the shadowy
underground of prohibited activities? Most would argue that cheerleading offers
benefits that balance its risks, and that with careful preparation and
education, these benefits make the risk of injury an acceptable one, even for
young people. Unfortunately, the public debate on Ecstasy is limited by both an
exaggeration of risks and a silence on benefits. Without a clear look at the
actual impact of its use on individuals and on society, the costly decision to
prohibit Ecstasy is difficult to justify.

As mentioned earlier, most of the risks associated with Ecstasy are a direct
consequence of prohibitionist public policy. These risks include poor access to
realistic harm-reduction educational materials, health risks related to
ingesting unregulated material, and delay in medical treatment due to fear of
criminal prosecution, imprisonment, stigma, and employment discrimination. Even
in rare situations when Ecstasy does cause acute health-related problems and/or
dependence, abuse, or addiction, prohibition accentuates these problems.

The economic cost of prohibition of certain drugs is also risky public policy,
as billions of dollars are spent every year on propaganda, law enforcement,
mandatory treatment, and prisons, forgoing billions of dollars from regulation
and taxation that could be spent on honest education, voluntary treatment, and
other pressing societal needs. Instead, these billions of dollars fuel
underground criminal networks while squandering precious government
credibility.

Most relevant to MAPS mission is the risk that MDMAs potential therapeutic
benefits will be lost on our society. While young people can still access
street Ecstasy almost as easily as taking cheerleading lessons, prohibition has
delayed for decades our ability to investigate MDMAs potential as a medicine
and a tool for healing.


1. Past-year refers to someone who has participated in organized
cheerleading or consumed Ecstasy at least once in the past year.

2. Spruit, I.P. Ecstasy use and policy responses in the Netherlands. Journal
of Drug Issues, 1999; 29(3): 653-678.

3. New DAWN: Why It Cannot Be Compared with Old DAWN explains this in
greater detail: http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/pubs/ shortreports/

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Completely hilarious, and even if it was copied from an email, I still love it.
	Just wonderful! MAPS are fab, and so are you for posting this!