What is the most commonly used drug amongst 12-17 year olds?

As I started to research the topic of what the most commonly used drug was amongst 12-17 year olds I was kind of caught off guard by the results I found. There was no doubt in my mind when I started researching this subject that I would find marijuana to be most prevalent amongst this age group. However the findings that shocked me the most was that right behind marijuana was prescription drugs.

 Studies done by SAMSHA show that 12-17 year olds are the second highest abusers of prescription drugs behind 18-25 year olds. This same study by SAMSHA, told us that the gap between use of marijuana and use of prescription drugs by 12-17 year olds is quickly shrinking. Between 2003 and 2005 the gap decreased by 5.9 %. In 2005 there showed to be 2.1 million teens’ abusing prescription drugs. Not to be sexist but the most surprising bit of information that I found was that out of that 12-17 year old age group the girls were the once abusing these prescription drugs more by almost a whole 1%!  This is clearly becoming an issue amongst the youth of America. Then to top it off in 2006 it was reported for the first time, there are just as many new abusers (12 and older) of prescription drugs as there are for marijuana. Obviously the issue before of money and availability of these drugs for younger age groups is no longer a set back to them. These children are getting ahold of these illegal drugs with ease and is on the verge of becoming an epidemic amongst our youth, if not already.

Gilliland A.H.

Sources: http://www.washoe.k12.nv.us/docs/pdf/TEENS_PD.pdf

 

 

What effect does marijuana have on your lungs?

Some say that marijuana is linked to lung cancer. Is this really true? To what extent and effect does marijuana have on the lungs? "There are also negative effects on the lungs that the tars and resins of marijuana can cause, particularly when it is mixed with tobacco. It has been proven that smoking marijuana can and will contribute to illnesses or disorders such as asthma and pulmonary emphysema. Although no known cases of death have been causal to smoking marijuana, it has been theorized that some types of cancer originate due to agitation of the body alone. Because marijuana users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and then hold it in their lungs as long as possible, chronic marijuana use may play a role in the development of chronic respiratory problems"(HealthBlurtIt). According to the Huff Post, "Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does.
The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users – those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function, but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions". The Huff Post goes on to say, "
The findings echo results in some smaller studies that showed while marijuana contains some of the same toxic chemicals as tobacco, it does not carry the same risks for lung disease.
It's not clear why that is so, but it's possible that the main active ingredient in marijuana, a chemical known as THC, makes the difference. THC causes the "high" that users feel. It also helps fight inflammation and may counteract the effects of more irritating chemicals in the drug, said Dr. Donald Tashkin, a marijuana researcher and an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Tashkin was not involved in the new study. Study co-author Dr. Stefan Kertesz said there are other aspects of marijuana that may help explain the results". This study did not focus or examine lung cancer. Another study from the United Kingdom suggests that, Habitual marijuana use may lead to the following effects on the lung: 

• acute and chronic bronchitis;
• extensive microscopic abnormalities in the cells lining the bronchial passages (bronchial epithelium), some of which may be premalignant;
• overexpression of genetic markers of progression to lung cancer in bronchial tissue;
• abnormally increased accumulation of inflammatory cells (alveolar macrophages) in the lung; and
• impairment in the function of these immune-effector cells (reduced ability to kill microorganisms and tumor cells) and in their ability to produce protective inflammatory cytokines.   

 There are many studies on Marijuana use. It is definitely illegal in the United States.The main thing that should be taken from this is if you use marijuana habitually, your chances of damaging your body are higher and your more at risk for illnesses and disorders which can lead to chronic respiratory problems. More studies and research are underway.

References:
 "How Does Marijuana Affect You And Your Lungs?" Blurt It. N.p., n.d. Web. 11
     Dec. 2013. <http://diseases-conditions.blurtit.com/114417/
     how-does-marijuana-affect-you-and-your-lungs>.
Tanner, Lindsey. "Marijuana And Lungs: Study Finds Drug Doesn't Do Same Kind Of
     Damage As Tobacco." Huff Post: San Francisco. N.p., 10 Jan. 2012. Web. 11
     Dec. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/
     marijuana-and-lungs-study_n_1197854.html>. 
Tashkin, Donald P. "Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses."
     UKCIA. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. <http://www.ukcia.org/
     research/EffectsOfMarijuanaOnLungAndImmuneDefenses.php>.


 Rachael S.W.


          

Does using Adderall really work?

I have always heard about students using Adderall when it comes to get a lot of school work done in a short amount of time. I have many friends and classmates that have taken Adderall before, but I have never tried it. This got me thinking, what is Adderall and does it really work?

Apparently, this drug is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, also known as ADHD. According to a new study from the University of Pennsylvania, students who took Adderall didn’t actually perform better on tests of cognitive function — they only thought they did. Adderall gives students an inflated sense of productivity, leaving them feeling like they have accomplished a lot. Adderall is a close cousin of amphetamine, which triggers the brain's reward system. Could it be that students find studying more pleasurable as an effect of this drug?

More studies are starting to show that using Adderall is more about creating pleasure when it comes to studying, rather than getting good grades. Although this information may not convince someone to stop using this drug, maybe I could at least tell my friends and classmates that it plays no role in accomplishing the grade they are hoping to get.

Kelsie Raines

Source:
http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/21/adderall-may-not-make-you-smarter-but-it-makes-you-think-you-are/

Do the scare tactics used in the anti-meth advertising work?

     We saw in class some of the ads used by The Meth Project in order to try and impact the growing methamphetamine problem in the United States. The methods used to discourage use are mainly scare tactics, which tend to be ineffective when trying to teach other subjects such as sexual education, for example. So I wanted to find out whether or not these ads were having a positive effect.

     According to the Montana Meth Project website, before the ad campaign started in 2005, Montana ranked #5 in the nation for meth abuse. Since 2005, Montana ranks #39 in the nation for meth abuse, teen meth use has declined by 63%, adult meth use has declined by 72%, and meth-related crime has decreased by 62%. The site states, “Results in Montana have proven the effectiveness of the Meth Project's prevention campaign. As a model prevention program for states nationwide, the Meth Project has expanded into Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, and Wyoming. Additional states are expected to launch in the coming year.” It’s encouraging to see that these ad campaigns are swaying the minds of those who are at risk of trying the harmful drug.

Dan FR

References:

http://montana.methproject.org/Results/index.php

http://www.methproject.org/about/

Who decides what schedule drugs are on and are their political influences on this process?

Scheduling of drugs began when the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was passed in 1961 mainly outlining that narcotic drug manufacturing and distribution in the United States was illegal. The FDA upholds this policy. When Nixon declared a “war on drugs” he began to spend a lot of budget dollars feeding into this ever growing system of federal agencies that cracked down on substance abuse. Nixon declared no knock warrants and a no strike rule for those found with illegal drugs. Among these drugs, marijuana, was the least likely intuitively to be on the list but from the craziness of the ‘60s it was associated with heavier drug use. Once Jimmy Carter took over however, he attempted to decriminalize marijuana in small amounts and decide that it was legal. There was a lot of backlash from this legalization because many parents feared that their kids were using marijuana which not only got in the way of their studies and extracurricular, but could often put them into dangerous situations they would not have otherwise been involved in. Therefore after take a step forward we took two steps back with Ronald Reagan’s presidency. It appears he redoubled efforts to fight drugs and in doing so made taxes go through the roof and overcrowding in prisons due to the one time offense causing you to go to jail rule. For some drugs, I believe this to be fair because they could hurt themselves or someone else while on them, but for marijuana it is very unlikely something like that would happen. I am not an expert but drugs like cocaine and heroin have a much higher danger (deaths) and a higher abuse potential than a drug like marijuana.

 

                As you can see from above a not so pretty picture is painted from all the policy issues involving scheduling. Marijuana is a much safer drug than most of the opiates and narcotics that are on the list, specifically Schedule I drugs. It appears that whoever is in power during the time another spell of drug issues is talked about in Congress or is brought to the public’s attention, then more people will argue with the standing policy.

                I personally think that marijuana should not be on Schedule I of the list. I think that is excessive and nonscientific. I think that money should be invested in finding out how the drugs work instead of just throwing them where they think they should go. Alcohol for instance is a very dangerous drugs in greater quantities, most definitely more dangerous than marijuana and some others. I think that politicians should fund research for drugs and their effects before they just decide to throw the drugs on a list based on how a particular politician feels about a drug. This research should be impartially and based on the findings, decide what schedule to put them in along with the punishment regarding use, distribution, and manufacturing.

 

Reference:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war

Seth Mayfield

Who decides what schedule drugs are on and are their political influences on this process?

Scheduling of drugs began when the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was passed in 1961 mainly outlining that narcotic drug manufacturing and distribution in the United States was illegal. The FDA upholds this policy. When Nixon declared a “war on drugs” he began to spend a lot of budget dollars feeding into this ever growing system of federal agencies that cracked down on substance abuse. Nixon declared no knock warrants and a no strike rule for those found with illegal drugs. Among these drugs, marijuana, was the least likely intuitively to be on the list but from the craziness of the ‘60s it was associated with heavier drug use. Once Jimmy Carter took over however, he attempted to decriminalize marijuana in small amounts and decide that it was legal. There was a lot of backlash from this legalization because many parents feared that their kids were using marijuana which not only got in the way of their studies and extracurricular, but could often put them into dangerous situations they would not have otherwise been involved in. Therefore after take a step forward we took two steps back with Ronald Reagan’s presidency. It appears he redoubled efforts to fight drugs and in doing so made taxes go through the roof and overcrowding in prisons due to the one time offense causing you to go to jail rule. For some drugs, I believe this to be fair because they could hurt themselves or someone else while on them, but for marijuana it is very unlikely something like that would happen. I am not an expert but drugs like cocaine and heroin have a much higher danger (deaths) and a higher abuse potential than a drug like marijuana.

 

                As you can see from above a not so pretty picture is painted from all the policy issues involving scheduling. Marijuana is a much safer drug than most of the opiates and narcotics that are on the list, specifically Schedule I drugs. It appears that whoever is in power during the time another spell of drug issues is talked about in Congress or is brought to the public’s attention, then more people will argue with the standing policy.

                I personally think that marijuana should not be on Schedule I of the list. I think that is excessive and nonscientific. I think that money should be invested in finding out how the drugs work instead of just throwing them where they think they should go. Alcohol for instance is a very dangerous drugs in greater quantities, most definitely more dangerous than marijuana and some others. I think that politicians should fund research for drugs and their effects before they just decide to throw the drugs on a list based on how a particular politician feels about a drug. This research should be impartially and based on the findings, decide what schedule to put them in along with the punishment regarding use, distribution, and manufacturing.

 

Reference:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war

Seth Mayfield

What causes ecstasy to put holes in the brain?

Ecstasy, known scientifically as MDMA, was once used in psychotherapy and had controversial effectiveness. Since that time it has become a Schedule 1 drug (one that has no medical use and has a high abuse potential). Ecstasy alters perception and is a dopamine agonist by blocking reuptake. It also, increases heart rate and blood pressure, causing a euphoric sensation.

                Several different theories have been proposed as to why it causes cell death. In fact, there has been research that argues that there is no such loss. The theories that say that there are holes however chalk the holes up to cellular death brought on by calcium influx which in large quantities can cause apoptosis (cell death) of the neurons. As more dopamine is used downstream, the overall effect causes over excitability of the neurons than they would typically be used to. Hijacking the reward pathway, the ecstasy causes addiction and in many cases even death because of the complications associated with its use (increased heart rate and blood pressure).

                Also, ecstasy is typically cut causing unknown substances to be a part of what you take. Often pills are the easiest and most accessible way of taking ecstasy but it can be crushed up and snorted as well. Many medical professionals argue that ecstasy is more dangerous than cocaine because it also acts on serotonin release.

For me the most dangerous part about ecstasy is that you don’t know what you are getting. The other things may be controversial about it but the lone fact that it is illegal, possibly cut with an unknown substance, causing it to have an unknown purity which could in of itself be lethal, then it is not worth trying. It is crazy that people decide to use it even after all these other factors. You also don’t know where it came from and therefore the people that create this concoction may do it differently causing it to act slightly different in your system.

This drug has a high abuse potential and partiers and ravers love it because of the extra surge of euphoria you feel upon using but once you come down from it you will find yourself wanting even more than before and so begins the vicious circle of addiction. I would advise anyone to stay away from it regardless if it cause serious brain damage or not. Several studies indicate that a hole in the brain is not entirely accurate and that many other parts of the brain swell upon substance use. The brain is plastic and therefore will change to meet its conditions. The hole in the brain may be possible because of cell death and cause short and possibly long term problems. The issue is that since it is illegal not many studies have focused on it to parse out fact from fiction. With all this being said, it is an addictive and abusable substance that has and can ruin even more lives.

Reference: http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/ECSTASY.htm

Seth Mayfield