Pubdate: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 Source: Detroit News (MI) Copyright: 2001, The Detroit News Contact: http://data.detnews.com:8081/feedback/ Website: http://www.detnews.com/ U-M EXPERT JOHNSTON: 'WE WILL NEVER WIN' WAR ON DRUGS Lloyd Johnston, a research scientist at the University of Michigan, has headed the federally funded Monitoring the Future study of drug use and other behaviors among American students and young adults since 1975. While he used to smoke a pipe as a young social psychologist, Johnston says he no longer smokes or drinks alcohol, and even avoids coffee because of its effects on his body. Richard Burr, associate editor of features for The Detroit News editorial page, interviewed him this week about recent drug use trends. The following are excerpts: Q. Is America winning the War on Drugs? A. The metaphor of a war on drugs has always been the wrong one because it is good for mobilizing a country, which is what Richard Nixon did when he introduced the metaphor. But it is not good for sustaining the effort because a war implies that somehow there is going to be a winner and a loser, and there's an end. This is an ongoing problem that is chronic. We will never win it. What we do is contain it and reduce it. And we have seen historically that we've been able to do that to a considerable degree in the mid-1980s and into the early '90s. If you want to think of it in those terms, there is a battlefield of supply reduction and a battlefield of demand reduction. We've not been terribly successful on the supply reduction battlefield. That's often where a sense of futility derives. The fundamental reason is there is an endless supply of suppliers. Whenever we dry up one source country or one intermediary like Manuel Noriega (in Panama), there is always a replacement. Q. What has been the trend of drug use during the 25 years you've been doing these surveys? A. This illicit drug epidemic really started in the mid-to late 1960s. The counterculture took some drugs at least as symbolic of its defiance of societal norms, particularly marijuana and LSD. That legitimated drug use for broad sectors of society, particularly youth. We've never really gotten back to before that era (in drug use), and we may not for a long time. The thing coasted to a peak in 1978-79, when we saw the highest proportion of Americans using illicit drugs. After that, there was a 13-year period of almost continuous drop in drug use. The major exception was cocaine coming along in the early '80s and establishing itself until 1986. Then, cocaine came to be seen as a very dangerous drug, and its use dropped dramatically. In the first half of the '90s, we saw a resurgence of the epidemic until about 1996, '97. But it was specific to adolescence. It was not observed among young or older adults. Marijuana and cigarettes were making a comeback. Then, in the late '90s, there was a turnaround and some reduction in drug use by older teens and more reduction among the younger teens. This is probably the most good news for the future, because they will become the older teens. Q. Which drug use has fallen most? A. Some drugs have fallen appreciably, such as LSD and inhalants and "ice." Other drugs, only very recently, have turned around, including heroin, cocaine and crack. We clearly had a relapse of the epidemic in the '90s. Part of that was explainable by the fact that the country took its eye off the ball. We forgot that there is a new generation of kids coming along, and they don't remember all the bad things that were happening to people when the drug epidemic was more in flower. As soon as you start to act like you've won (the war), that's when you start to lose it. Q. What is the new fad drug? A. Clearly, ecstasy is the latest drug of growing popularity. It was around during the 1990s, and we saw sharp increases starting in 1998. In 2000, for the first time, we saw it migrate down; even the eighth-graders showed an increase in its use.... In a way, cocaine has many parallels (with ecstasy). Initially, everybody thought (cocaine) was safe. You couldn't get addicted. You couldn't overdose. Why not? Even academic experts were saying these things. In the case of ecstasy, at least in the early years, its use was being touted to some degree by psychotherapists and marriage counselors. It was supposed to be a drug that was good at getting people to see each other's points of views, and so forth. I think the word to some degree is getting out (about the dangers of ecstasy). Q. What seems to be the drug of choice among suburban whites? A. We haven't in recent years been distinguishing suburban from urban because there haven't been very big differences in the use of particular drugs. When you are dealing with a city like Detroit, which is largely African American, and the surrounding suburbs are largely white, there is probably a difference, but it has more to do with being white or black. We have known for quite sometime, for example, that African-American kids have never been very interested in inhalants. Similarly, hallucinogens have not caught on among African-American kids. That seems so far to include ecstasy. The African-American kids, especially as they get into their later teens, tend to be lower on all drugs, licit and illicit. There's also now a huge difference in the cigarette smoking rates. Cigarette smoking has clearly lost cache among black adolescents and is seen as white behavior. Q. Is ecstasy the drug of choice among whites? A. Marijuana is still the predominant illicit drug, but ecstasy has now passed cocaine. Q. What ethnic or racial group tends to use drugs the most? A. Good question. Unfortunately, we don't have large enough samples to characterize some of the smaller ethnic groups, like Native Americans or Orientals, on an annual basis. But we do look at them periodically. In general, Native Americans tend to have the highest illicit drug use rate among any ethnic group, quite devastating actually. Among the three large ethnic groups - Hispanics, blacks and whites - whites generally have the highest rate in the middle and late teen years in the school samples. But when we look at the eighth graders, when virtually no dropping out has yet occurred, Hispanics come out high on a number of things. Blacks, on average, have the lowest use rate. And if Orientals were included, they would be lower still. Q. What message do you think the Oscar-nominated movie Traffic sends about drug use? A. The tragedy of addiction was clearly and powerfully communicated by the daughter (in the movie), not only tragedy for the addict but the family. I thought they did a pretty good job of emphasizing family relations and the issue of kids getting off on the wrong track. And they gave a pretty good portrayal, although in some ways unrealistic, of the corruption and violence that the drug money brings to both this country and overseas. (They did a good job in portraying) the reality that the drug czar is in a tough position. But it almost portrayed the drug problem as too overwhelming, something the country really can't get a grasp on and is not really amenable to effective intervention. That is a disempowering feeling. This (feeling) is in part because the areas where we have the most leverage and can make the most progress aren't very dramatic. They don't make good film footage or news copy or TV drama. And that's the part about education in schools, in families, persuasion through media campaigns, counseling and treatment. Q. What changes in drug policy would you recommend for the Bush administration? A. One thing we have been moving toward, I'm glad to see, is the increasing access to treatment and, in particular, introducing treatment in prisons. We need to have better prevention programs in the schools than we have. Q. Is DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) considered an effective program against drug use? A. Not by anybody in the drug use field except DARE. Q. Would you suggest that DARE be dropped or reformed? A. There is an effort to reformulate what DARE is, to change the content and so forth. All that is fine. Individual school districts decide what they are going to have in their curriculum, so they can choose. It seems to me that when there are programs out there that are proven effective, it doesn't make much sense to pick up one that isn't proven effective. One of the fundamental problems with DARE is that it's premised on the notion that a police officer is the best change agent in dealing with kids on this subject. A police officer is an authority figure. These kids are at an age when they are anti-authority. That may be the Achilles heel. Q. Periodically, we hear the occasional politician like New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson call for the decriminalization of marijuana or, in the case of former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, urge the legalization of drugs. What do you think of these ideas? A. I'm opposed to legalization because it is likely to increase the proportion of our population, in particular, our young people, using drugs. The drugs that are by far the most widely used are alcohol and tobacco. It is not a coincidence that those are legal drugs. I don't think any of us really want our kids to be high a lot of the time. It is also a policy which is a one-way ratchet. If you legalize, it's very hard to go back. The best illustration of that happened during Prohibition. (People) thought it was their right to have alcohol, and any attempt to remove that "right" was seen as illegitimate. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm in favor of Draconian laws. We can have much milder responses to users as opposed to dealers. In the war on drugs, the enemy are our own kids. It doesn't make a lot of sense (to punish users). Extreme punishment clearly hasn't worked. What has generally happened is that the stamping has occurred on the little guys, and the big guys still get away. Even some of the conservatives in Michigan who favored minimum mandatory sentencing and so forth want it undone because they basically see it as a failed policy. It filled prisons with people who shouldn't be there. - --- MAP posted-by: Kirk Bauer