C.E.P.T.A.
The CAMPAIGN for EFFECTIVE PREVENTION and TREATMENT of ADDICTION.
5b. STOPPING THE
U.K’s DRUGS PROBLEMS
BEFORE THEY CAN
GET STARTED
a CEPTA report
Surveys indicate that some 45% of
young people in the 16 to 29 years bracket have used illegal drugs. More than 24% have used in the last year, and
over 15% in the last month, and Home Office studies found that 70% of males
have ‘tried’ an illegal drug before they are twenty-four.
At the other end of the age range,
we know that 40% of 30-35 year olds and only 13% of 45-59 year olds, have tried
drugs at some time, and there are those who will say that this lower usage by
older people is because illegal drug usage is a relatively new idea started in
the 1960s by LSD and ‘pot’. Partly true,
but the main reason is because our children are now targeted.
According to Home Office figures,
‘past’ drugs use (i.e. not necessarily continuing use) in
* 12 year
olds: 8.3% (1 in 12),
* 14 year
olds: 33.3% (1 in 3),
* 16 year
olds: 40.0% (2 in 5),
* 18+ year olds: 50.0% (1 in 2, with 1 in 3 continuing to use
regularly),
and what these and other statistics
reveal is that, far from being something merely to mention in passing along with adult drug
dependency, usage amongst our children has for some tine been the most
rapidly developing part of the drugs use market.
With what he saw as good intention,
an oft quoted Jesuit priest once said: "Give me a child until he is seven,
and I will make him a Christian for life".
Now we have the drug pushers and psychiatrists saying: "Give me a
child before or during his teens and I will make him (or her) a drug-user for life".
And it’s our children they’re
talking about!
By giving free samples, by making it
cheaply available at the school gate – and now actually within our schools –
the drug barons have made the drug supply widely accessible. But our kids are not stupid, so how have the
pushers managed to stimulate demand?
All the psychological buttons have
been pressed – “where’s your sense of adventure?”, peer pressure, macho
attitudes, fashion, impress colleagues of both sexes, avoid being left out,
“not scared are you?”, “everybody else is doing it”, “surely you’re curious?”
“dare you to try”, etc., ad nauseam.
But it is two other factors which
have done most to generate the actual demand amongst our youngsters.
Over the years it has become clear
that the children who move the earliest to smoking cannabis are those already
smoking tobacco. Not only have they
‘learned’ to roll cigarettes and to smoke without coughing or other discomfort,
but they have also broken through what for most children is an important barrier
to cannabis use.
It is just as illegal for children
to smoke tobacco as it is for them to smoke cannabis, and by smoking tobacco they
have already become knowing and persistent lawbreakers, with cannabis
soon seen by them as no different to tobacco – especially as the average spliff
normally contains both cannabis ‘weed’ and tobacco, or is a tobacco cigarette
with cannabis oil added.
Then there is the hugely significant
fact that well over three-quarters of teenage cannabis users admitted that they
were drinking alcohol, or had just done so, when they were coaxed into having a
‘puff’ or trying a ‘spliff’ by their "friends". Most of them also said that they had several
times been offered it before - when sober - and had refused. Similar statistics applied to the second time
they smoked cannabis, and again they said they probably wouldn't have if
they hadn't been drinking first.
Responsibility and judgement are the
first things to go out of the window when a person is drinking alcohol, and the
Dutch courage which alcohol engenders also conquers legitimate fears they may
have had when sober. Furthermore,
because alcohol usage outside the home is illegal for the under 18s, by
regularly drinking, they have in this regard also become regular lawbreakers, which
again makes the additional law-breaking involved in using cannabis appear far
less significant.
Clearly, if we are to successfully
tackle the escalation of illicit drug usage by our children, we must first
bring illegal under-age smoking and drinking under much, much tighter control
than is currently the case.
Whilst this may at first sight
appear difficult, it is fully capable of being achieved to a meaningful and
worthwhile degree, and how this may be accomplished is discussed later in this
report.
Alcohol usage is roughly ten times
that of illegal drugs, and cannabis users outnumber all other illicit drug
users by around ten-to-one. It is
therefore an alarming commentary on the sinister impact of drugs on the
individual and the society at large, that the much lesser used illegal drug
substances are recognised as of greater concern than the ten times greater
usage of alcohol - the most significant illegal drug of course being cannabis.
Users of it regularly argue that
‘cannabis is not a gateway’ for so-called “harder” drugs because they and the
majority of their friends have never been tempted to use heroin, crack or
cocaine, etc. But in assessing the
veracity and value of this statement, one must first take into account that it
is nearly impossible to find a heroin user who did not first use cannabis.
Secondly, in the 1960s ‘make love not war’ days of ‘pot’
smoking, the active constituent THC which gave the smoker his ‘high’ was at a
strength of only 0.5% (half a percent).
Since then the cannabis plant has been genetically developed to increase
the THC content to 9% (which is the strength of the ‘skunk’ that is the main
availability on our streets today) and even to as much as 27% for ‘Nederweed’
from our friendly Dutch growers. As a
result cannabis users don’t need to try heroin – their 2005 supplies are 18 to
54 times stronger than 1960s pot.
About the only advertising that the
world’s ‘drug barons’ do is to give away free samples. As with all other marketing gimmicks, this
ploy is intended to help them reach their goal of more sales and more
profit. Greater profits can only come
from increased prices or from lower costs.
More sales can only come:
1) from selling more to
existing users, OR,
2) from persuading new
customers to join the party!
But most of the existing users are
already getting as much as they can afford.
So unavoidably and inevitably, the only way to expand the drugs market is
by finding or creating new 'user-customers'.
But where are these new user-customers going to come
from?
From amongst 30 to 60 year old
parents and grand-parents? Of course
not! These are the generations which
were captured by the drug known as the 'demon' in their youth. Today 95% of us take a drink on an occasional
to regular basis and most of us think we don't need drugs to have a good
time!
So where are the new user-customers
coming from for nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, heroin, amphetamines, crack,
cocaine and ecstasy, etc?
The answer we all know is - from the
6 to 26 year olds - with the accent on the younger ones, because children are
easier to get started and they are the customers who will go on ‘using’ for
twice as many years as a 35 to 40 year old.
So all the efforts of the barons, their smugglers and enforcers and
their pushers at the school gates are, in
the final analysis, focussed on finding, creating or enticing new
user-customers from amongst OUR children.
(And now we also have to suffer
psychiatric prescribing of drugs to our children for similar reasons.)
Around the country there are just
under 10 million children of school age with an average of approximately
three-quarters of a million children in each school year.
Based on the usage figures given
above, today there are nearly 2 million
As a result, whilst some 17% of our
present workforce is using sufficient drugs – legal, prescription and illicit –
to diminish their job performance, just over twice as many students leaving
schools, colleges and universities to start full-time employment are already a
part of the illicit drug culture.
Furthermore, a greater proportion of
today’s coming-of-age student group is also drinking a lot more alcohol than
previous generations when they were just starting into work, so that the
destructive impact on our industrial and commercial productivity and
profitability is set to double in the next decade.
So many other well informed writers
have written thousands of papers and done such a workmanlike job of describing
the horrors of drugs use on individuals, families, communities, the economy and
the future of
More urgent and important therefore is what is being done,
and
what can be done. to combat these rising negative
statistics.
Unfortunately, the government, led by its own ignorance and
by vested interests, has been convinced to increasingly rely upon ‘Drugs
Education’ to tackle the problem.
This includes ‘harm reduction’, ‘informed choice’ and
‘responsible use’, etc. Observably the
product of these lessons has been children who believe they know all about
drugs and therefore consider it OK to try them.
This so-called education completely misses out the basics of
prevention, which
dictionaries tell us is fundamentally: "the
act of anticipating or preparing for some possible future event or condition
with the intention of stopping it from occurring - i.e. keeping it from
happening ".
Everyday examples of this are
‘fire-prevention’, ‘accident prevention’, ‘prevention of cruelty to animals’,
‘prevention of cruelty to children’ and ‘crime prevention’, etc. In all these cases the message is clear - we
want to stop fires from starting, accidents from happening, cruelty and crime
from taking place. AND we want to act now
to make sure these unwanted life and health threatening events do not ever
occur.
What a shame that the same clarity
of message is being deliberately obscured, diverted and even reversed when it
comes to ‘drugs education’ as promoted by government policies dictated by
bodies like DrugScope.
To
be effective, preventative initiatives must recognise the intelligence of our
youth and their level of "street wisdom" and therefore be based on the truth
about drugs rather than on some of the psycho-babble which has been
passing for ‘drugs education’.
Knowledgeable parents have always been the most
effective prevention force. Yet in the
U.K. parents have regularly been dismissed as 'amateurs' by psychologists,
psychiatrists and other self-proclaimed "recognised experts" seeking
to generate new business for their vested interest sector.
What
a shame when
It follows that, to be totally
effective, drug prevention must take account of the degree of influence which
parents can normally be expected to have on their children's development. It is also vital that their message is
accurate.
Up to when they leave home, most youngsters
tend to regard their parents as authorities to whom they can come with a vast
variety of problems for answers and guidance.
Unfortunately this does not usually
hold good when it comes to drugs. Mum
and Dad are out of communication to the degree that they are unwilling to
discuss this subject with their children.
But why should they be unwilling?
Because, in addition to having been
dismissed or marginalised by professional psycho-babble - as well as by some
media - the truth is that: most parents have been told nearly
nothing of the true and important facts about drugs. As a result, anything they have to say on the
subject comes straight out of their fear, out of the sensationalism of media
reports and out of their lack of any real knowledge. It therefore most often emerges as awkward
unsupported condemnation of their offsprings.
Yet the problem is so easily
handled. To make drug prevention work -
our parents must also have full access to truly effective drugs
PREVENTION training for themselves.
Parents need these facts because
drugs are one of our children's peer group subjects about which they hear
something new every day at school, on
a basis which includes all sorts of misunderstandings, false ideas, mystery,
speculation, excitement and even some apparent adventure - especially in the
way drugs are glowingly presented by user ‘friends’ and pushers.
The end of discussion on drugs
between children and their parents is when Mum and Dad get upset and it becomes
clear that neither of them "knows".
The children then mistrust their guidance on that subject.
However, by fully and truthfully
informing themselves about drugs at an early stage, parents can preserve their
original powerful educational link with their children, and so make valuable
and effective drug prevention a low cost reality in the early days of a child’s
contact with our drugs culture.
In addition to completely informing themselves, because children learn
more by example than any other method, there are two activities which parents
must avoid in front of their children.
The ‘gateway to cannabis effect’ of
both tobacco and alcohol has already been mentioned above, and, because
consumption of both these substances is illegal for children, the first thing to
do is 1) to more strictly enforce current law, 2) to give current laws more
teeth and, if necessary, 3) to introduce new legislation to give police and
customs more powers.
A zero-tolerance attitude must be
adopted towards licensed premises – whether a corner shop off-licences,
supermarkets or pub - which sell alcohol or tobacco products to children under
18 years. Loss of their licence should
be the main penalty, and unlicensed supplying should be penalised by heavy
fines. Forget imprisonment – strike at
the pocket.
Children below 18 are today drinking
more alcohol and at lower ages than ever before in our history. And it's not just a little more - its a
gigantic amount more. Not only because
they are getting through more drinks, but also because the drinks themselves
today contain more than twice as much alcohol as they did 50 years ago. Beer at 5% to 9% is available everywhere
today, but in 1948 it was usually 2% to 2½%.
So limits for alcohol content must also be seriously considered.
Whilst some licensees can be
‘careless’ about illegally serving the under-aged drinker, a major pusher of
illegal alcohol usage is. . . parents!
We find alcohol in 90% of British
homes, and research shows that the majority of under-age drinking is done at
home, which is pretty obvious if you think about it.
Daren's house one night, Tony's the
next, then Mary's, Jane's, Peter's, Clint's and Sharon's on the following
nights. Virtually no chance of police
intervention. Also fewer driving
problems. T.V. or a video in the lounge
or bedroom and: "whose round is it?"
Well in most cases, they're drinking
Dad's supply straight out of the pantry or fridge, supplemented by what they
have been able to wangle out of the local off-licence or supermarket.
Even in homes where parents don't
themselves drink regularly and offer no encouragement for their offsprings to
drink, there is usually little or no dis-couragement. "If he's not drinking here, he'll be
doing it down the road and coming home at God knows what hour. If he's here, at least I know where he is and
I can see that he gets to bed at a sensible time".
If we were talking just about
alcohol, many parents, as a justification of their own drinking habits, would
say: "Doesn't sound too bad to me".
But we're not talking just about alcohol. We are talking about cannabis, and how
youngsters get started on it.
So if we really do want to help keep
our
children away from drugs, then we must first keep them away from alcohol. If that means cutting back a bit on our own
drinking: - "Doesn't sound too bad
to me".
The fact is that, from age 11 to 17,
you can even find many children sharing a six pack or bottle of wine with one
or both of their parents. And in
families where Dad and Mum drink regularly, it is also increasingly regarded as
"normal" for young children to have 'one or two' drinks - initially
on 'special occasions' but later, on an increasing day to day basis.
But in light of the way this can
quickly lead to cannabis and other illegal drug use, such parental behaviour is
totally irresponsible and, because of the impact that even one drug user can
have on his own life, his family and the community at large, plus the long term
costs to the whole society, a zero-tolerance attitude towards such gross
recklessness is the only sane solution.
That part of the law which currently
permits children above 5 years to drink alcohol at home should be scrapped and
replaced with a statute making parents responsible for any under-age
drinking by their children when under the control of their parents at home or
elsewhere.
SOME WILL SAY THAT THIS IS POLITICALLY CHALLENGING, BUT THE LIKELIHOOD
IS THAT THERE WILL BE MORE APPLAUSE THAN CATCALLS FROM THE VOTERS.
Today, every family in the land has a family member, other
relative, friend or colleague ‘on drugs’, so that the call for truly effective
prevention is mountingdaily, along with demand for the actual curing of their
children and the addicts who commit so much crime and cost taxpayers so much.
There may be other ways to seek this
postponement which could be more effective or more politically expedient so
that the following policy proposals should be regarded only as a guide to what
would likely succeed.
1) Tackle the local drug DEMAND problem at
source – namely in our schools and
within our families.
2) Recognise that, like cannabis – for sane
health reasons and protection of children
- alcohol and tobacco are both already
illegal drugs for those below 18 years
Even though it might appear difficult to
enforce, because it will send a better
message to parents, extend this
illegality to cover the supplying in the home, by
anyone, of alcohol and tobacco to minors,
and to the permitting of youth alcohol
and tobacco consumption in the
home - already the case with cannabis.
3) It is currently an offence for minors to consume
Alcohol and Tobacco in public.
Reinforce this by treating it in the same
manner as for the possession and use of
cannabis.
Extend this illegality to include the home, whether consumed with or
without parental permission.
4) Tackle the illegal supplying of
Alcohol and Tobacco to minors by anyone, inside
or outside the home. These are licensed substances, so that
penalties should
include both withdrawal of the supplier’s
licence temporarily or permanently
(whether it be an off-licence or a
pub license) plus very large fines for repeat
offences.
Prison should in no event be considered.
5) Ban all forms of so-called ‘harm reduction
drugs education’ which are not fully
prevention based and so do not aim for
total abstinence. Avoid curricula which
include ‘informed choice’, ‘responsible
use’ & ‘safe use’ of drugs, and that
falsely presume prevention to be
elusive.
6) Support and promote only those educational activities
in our schools which are
squarely based on effective and provenly
successful prevention principles. This
would include the hugely triumphant Truth
About Drugs’ lectures, the very
effective zero tolerance ‘Say NO to
Drugs’ and the ‘Say YES to Life’ campaigns,
and similar themes such as ‘Just say NO’
and DARE, etc.
7) Launch comprehensive education of parents in
all matters related to drugs, drug
use, use indicators, drug prevention,
addiction treatment and all other matters
which will permit them to be a fully
informed and accurate authority in their
children’s lives on all such matters.
8) Launch a comprehensive programme intended to
help parents reduce their own
smoking and drinking consumption. Bans should be imposed on tobacco and
alcohol advertising of all types,
and health warnings should be introduced for
display on alcoholic products.
9) Bring in much tougher penalties for driving
under the influence of drugs and / or
drink.
Bring in a penalty escalator for any driving offence which is aggravated
by the presence of drugs or drink in the
driver or his vehicle or in or on the
person of his passengers. e.g. “exceeding the speed limit” would become
“exceeding the speed limit whilst under
the influence or in possession of alcohol
and / or drugs.”, etc.
10) Where a smoking, drinking or drug using
offender is under 18 years of age,
ensure that legislation exists to also
hold their parents responsible for their
child’s law-breaking and give magistrates
powers to place both the children and
the parent on prevention training
programmes.
11) In addition to the ‘stick’ of penalties,
examine the viability of a ‘carrot’ system
for children and parents who remain
tobacco, alcohol and drug free. For
children
this could include awards, prizes and
gifts, as well as outings and / or days off.
It
could also include government subsidy of
car insurances for each one, two or
three year period a driver has kept his
licence clean of penalty points, and a
system of cancelling future penalty
points could be devised for those who have
earned award points for avoiding tobacco,
alcohol & drugs.
It is vital that any programmes on
any of the subjects indicated above – especially prevention and cure of
addiction - do not follow the pattern of the monopolist systems and programmes
to which we have been subjected by the psycho-pharmacological fraternity over
the last quarter century or so.
Such systems and projects have been
obviously failing year after year, as is confirmed by the daily expanding total
of chronic drug users and the escalating number of new users slipping through
our totally inadequate and basically misleading prevention net.
Organisations (usually secretly)
based on, promoted or supported by, vested interests have nearly consistently
proved that they cannot be relied upon for accurate or unbiased
information. In the drugs and drink
field there is not and basically never can be any form of “self-regulation”
worth relying on.
The fact that the U.K. has
demonstrably the most ineffective
anti-drugs use policies in Europe along with the worst record in regard to
protecting our youth against drugs gives a brightly flashing warning signal that
none of the people involved in the present government supported prevention and
treatment modalities is to be trusted to advise on alternative policies.
Quite the reverse. Any new policy will be capable of succeeding
to the degree that it differs from our present psycho-pharmacological
prevention and ‘treatment’ failures.
But these vested interests (whose
plans and policies have over the years been so quietly developed and so gently
but firmly nailed into place in the minds of policy makers and civil servants)
are not without very serious battle going to permit any party to come along and
talk about introducing drug prevention and cure policies which do things differently
from current “drugs education” and current “drug treatment” activities.
Adoption of the new policies
outlined in this paper will result in an enormous loss of taxpayer funded
turnover and profit for the psycho-pharmaceutical industrialists, and they are
not going to sit quietly back and let that power and profit be taken away.
So be warned, it is a Churchillian
attitude which is now desperately needed.
© Copyright
C.E..P.T.A. and E. Kenneth Eckersley, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 &
2005. All World Rights Reserved