Opinions - The significance of the WHO study on world drug use released last week

[Expat98]

What's the Opposite of a Drug-Free Society?

Jacob Sullum, Reason Magazine
July 3, 2008

With the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration celebrating its 35th birthday this week, the publication of a new study estimating drug use rates across countries is well-timed. Of the 17 countries surveyed by the World Health Organization, China has the lowest rate of illegal drug use (cannabis and cocaine combined), followed by Japan, while the United States has the highest rate, followed closely by New Zealand. (Here is a comparison table.) "Globally," the researchers report, "drug use is not distributed evenly and is not simply related to drug policy, since countries with stringent user-level illegal drug policies did not have lower levels of use than countries with liberal ones." It may be that the United States has especially stringent drug policies partly because it has especially high levels of drug use. But it seems clear, after you look at drug use not only across countries but over time in the U.S., that the ebbs and flows have little to do with the intensity of drug law enforcement (which is not to say that prohibition itself has no impact).

As I mentioned yesterday, changes in drug use among teenagers since the DEA was established in the 1970s are not very impressive. I focused on drug use by high school seniors because it is a measure of success commonly used by drug warriors and because the government has comparable data for that group going back more than three decades. But whichever age group you look at, trends in drug use do not correspond very well with changes in drug control efforts. Overall, drug use in the U.S. peaked around 1979 and began to fall well before Ronald Reagan ramped up the war on drugs. As Republicans are fond of noting, drug use did rise during the Clinton administration, but it started to fall again before anything George W. Bush did differently could have had an impact. Although marijuana arrests have increased by more than 150 percent since 1990, marijuana use seems to be just as common today as it was then, if not more so. There is some uncertainty on that point, since the government changed the techniques used in its broadest drug use survey during this period. But in the Monitoring the Future Study, the rate for past-year marijuana use among high school seniors was 31.7 percent percent in 2007, compared to 32.5 percent in 1990.

Getting back to the WHO study, it's striking that the lifetime marijuana use rate in the U.S. (42.4 percent) is more than twice as high as the rate in the Netherlands (19.8 percent), despite the latter country's famously (or notoriously, depending on your perspective) tolerant cannabis policies. The difference for lifetime cocaine use is even bigger: The U.S. rate (16.2 percent) is eight times the Dutch rate (1.9 percet). Do these results mean that draconian drug laws promote drug use, while a relatively laid-back approach discourages it? Not necessarily; that would be a hell of a "forbidden fruit" effect. But one thing that's clear is the point made by the WHO researchers: Drug use "is not simply related to drug policy." If tinkering with drug policy (within the context of prohibition) has an impact, it is hard to discern, and it's small compared to the influence of culture and economics.

---

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127356.html

[enquirewithin]

Who would fill the enormous number of prison places in the US if marijuana users were not imprisoned? The "War on Drugs' is an easy way to apear tough on crime without really tacking crime. The Prison Industrial complex needs prisoners, just as the massive Military Industrial complex needs wars.

[mickenator]

This is the whole point about legalising drugs world-wide, it would turn into less of a problem if it was freely available. People would then turn to other things as once the 'Oh aren't I being naughty doing this' thing was removed then alot of the interest would be gone.

[satinhide]

If we want a successful prohibition campaign against the use of debilitating drugs (not any drugs, just debilitating abuse behavior), this world is going to need to analyze this subject beyond the current scope. Governments are concerned with lying to people and declaring WAR on drugs, and according to this study these types of policies have no bearing on actual statistics of drug use among the population!

If the powers at be really want to deter drug abuse, then they will need to understand what cultural differences the countries with lower levels exhibit and try to implement those changes in the societies with high levels of abuse. Swim does not agree to having regulation on all types of chemicals and their use, only to regulating those with abuse characteristics and to people who exhibit unsafe and harmful behavior while under the influence. Total prohibition is not working and probably never will, as people are to stubborn and that makes it hard to take their basic rights away.

[Lunar Loops]

For more information on this study, please see he following thread in the drug news forum:

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61988

[cra$h]

swim strongly disagrees with the whole "it's bad, and that's why I blaze" argument, since swim would be much more comforable with relaxed drug policies, as would a lot of his friends. but swim knows with the underage alcohol market is pretty much none. swim is very rarely offered alchohol, while marijuana is offered almost daily. setting up the laws like they have for alchohol would be the best way to set it up, since it would greatly restrict it to adults, and not kids. plus if weed is made in a more public state, people wouldnt be offered harder drugs as often, since the liquor/weed store isn't selling coke or smack.