PACE Blog

Excessive alcohol consumption led to British blues singer Amy Winehouse’s death at age 27 in July of this year according the report of the coroner’s inquest released Oct. 26^th. Upon her death, Winehouse joined a tragic list of talented artists including Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix, all of whom died at age 27 from substance abuse.

While the death of Winehouse has caused many to reflect about the influence of alcohol and other harmful substances in the entertainment world, a troubling aspect of the reactions to her passing is that we tend to see it in isolation. Her celebrity status causes us to separate her tragedy from those of ordinary people who struggle with substance use and abuse. But to isolate her death from those of others leaves a false impression that her problems were unique and related to her occupation.

Before she was a star with a problem, Winehouse was a young woman with a problem, a daughter with a problem, someone’s sister, co-worker and friend with a problem – just like our own family members, friends and neighbors who become entangled with drugs, alcohol or other substances.

Unfortunately, we don’t know all the reasons people get involved with alcohol, tobacco or drugs. But, we do know that there is nothing inevitable about first-time substance use. It can be prevented and therefore, so can the all-too-frequent tragic consequences of substance use for our children, friends, and neighbors whether their lives are celebrated in large or small circles.

For information about preventing substance use, check out the links on the P.A.C.E. Coalition Website’s Resources page or visit us in person at 1645 Sewell Drive, Suite 41, in Elko, Nevada.

Once again, health organizations are playing catch-up with another drug delivery device, electronic cigarettes, touted by manufacturers and vendors as a safe alternative to smoked tobacco products. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by heating and vaporizing liquid nicotine and other chemicals and flavor additives which the user inhales as they would tobacco smoke. Effective marketing campaigns have persuaded many, including adolescents, that e-cigarettes pose little or no health risks for users.

In reality, these products have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration or other authoritative scientific institutions to determine their safety or the extent of any risk. What has been learned in limited analysis of various brands of e-cigarettes is that many contain chemicals other than nicotine that are known to be toxic or carcinogenic.

One chemical found in samples is diethylene glycol, a constituent of anti-freeze that is toxic to humans. Known carcinogenic compounds, including nitrosamines, have been found in e-cigarettes as well. No long-term studies have been conducted to determine potential effects of continued use of e-cigarettes. Nor has the effect on non-users of second-hand “smoke” produced by the vaporized chemicals been studied.

Of particular concern is the addition of flavor additives such as chocolate or strawberry that may provide additional appeal to young users or potential users and put them at risk for nicotine addiction and eventual tobacco use.

It’s important for those concerned with public health and youth substance use prevention to familiarize themselves with safety issues surrounding e-cigarettes and to give young people the facts about nicotine and harmful chemicals found in e-cigarettes. Only with accurate information can youth be expected to make wise decisions about electronic cigarettes or other substance use.

Several western states have approved the use of so-called “medical marijuana” either by legislative action or ballot initiative, making it the only “medicine” in the U.S. that has not met the standards of approval required of every other prescription medicine. In every state where its use has been approved, the pro-marijuana advocates appealed to the voters’ sympathy for those who suffer from debilitating medical conditions like HIV/Aids, Multiple Sclerosis, and cancer. But now that those states have implemented “medical marijuana” policies, the reality bears no resemblance to the assertions made by “medical marijuana” advocates.

In California, Oregon, Montana and Colorado, patients with the above conditions make up less than five percent of those obtaining “medical marijuana.” In each state, the vast majority of “medical marijuana” users are using it for chronic unspecified pain with the largest number of users under the age of 34. When young adult “medical marijuana” users were questioned as part of related studies, nearly all had started using marijuana as adolescents.

Once users have the state’s blessing, they rarely if ever see the doctor who recommended marijuana to treat their condition. In most states, a few physicians account for the bulk of “medical marijuana” referrals. For example, in Oregon, as of March, a mere 10 physicians accounted for 46 percent of the almost 40,000 “medical marijuana” card holders.* Clearly, they can’t be spending time with or learning the histories of their “patients.” And, without continued patient monitoring, it’s difficult to see how the medical community can develop an accurate picture of “medical marijuana’s” efficacy.

In California and Colorado the story is the same; a handful of doctors make the bulk of referrals, according to speakers from the two states who attended the 2011 Oregon Summit: The Impact of Marijuana in April.

Clearly, the majority of voters did not intend “medical marijuana” to become a treatment for any and all generalized pain. Many now have cause to believe their compassion was abused.

*Dealing with Medical Marijuana, A Law Enforcement Perspective, 2011 Oregon
Summit: The Impact of Marijuana, paper presented by Sgt. Erik Fisher, Oregon State Police, Drug Enforcement Section.

Imagine that there existed a special cap capable of elevating the wearer’s mood and reducing social angst. Would you buy one for your teen? What if the cap damaged nerve tissue and hindered the growth of brain cells needed for normal development? What if it stunted the area of the brain responsible for learning and memory formation? Wouldn’t most parents view such a product with alarm?

Yet, many adults are unaware that alcohol acts on the adolescent brain as does our imaginary headgear. Alcohol interferes with the production of nerve cells during an important period of growth, including in the frontal cortex, where judgment and impulse control occur, and in the hippocampus, which is crucial in forming memories.

Until recently, scientists thought that brain development ended by adolescence and that lack of experience distinguished adolescent from adult brains. But, advances in science have shown that our brains continue growing into our twenties, making adolescent brains structurally and functionally different from adult brains. New research is probing how different factors influence this development.

Neuroscientist Susan Tapert, Ph.D., of the University of California, San Diego, studied the effect of alcohol on adolescent brain growth. Her results were published in the journal, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors in 2009.

Tapert discovered significant differences between brain scans of 12- to 14-year-old alcohol users and those of non-users. In drinkers, she found areas of damaged or poor quality nerve tissue that appeared to interfere with communication between brain cells. She called them “dings” and said it was unclear if the damage could be reversed. Tapert also found that binge drinking, even once or twice a month, produced substantial damage.

As evidence continues to mount about the harmful effects of alcohol on teens and young adults, Partners Allied for Community Excellence, P.A.C.E. Coalition, believes it is more important than ever to eliminate America’s cultural acceptance of underage drinking. We believe that:

• Adults must challenge the notion that underage drinking is inevitable.
• An activity that may produce irreversible brain damage cannot be considered a rite
  of passage.
• Adult-supervised teen drinking, however well-intentioned, is adult-supervised teen harm.

To learn more about preventing underage drinking, call P.A.C.E. Coalition at (775) 777-3451 or visit our office at 1645 Sewell Drive, Elko, NV 89801.

A significant factor behind young peoples’ decisions about using a drug like marijuana is their perception of its potential harm. After years of decreasing use, marijuana is on the rise largely because of a concerted effort by the pro-marijuana minority to convince the rest of us that it is safe. Their arguments rest on misinformation and half-truths.

They say marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but until marijuana has been studied as thoroughly as alcohol, that’s an argument that can’t be made honestly. States are only beginning to test for marijuana and other drugs after vehicle accidents. Hospitals and drug treatment facilities are reporting increased admissions for marijuana dependency or addiction.

At the same time, growers are doing everything they can to make marijuana more intoxicating (and therefore dangerous) by increasing the percentage of the dominant psychoactive ingredient, THC, in each plant. Today’s pot is many times more potent that the pot of the hippie generation.

They say that marijuana is not a gateway drug, but what else can you call it when such a large percentage of hard drug users have a history of marijuana use? If it weren’t a gateway drug, the percentage of hard drug users who smoke marijuana would be the same as the percentage of the general population who smoke marijuana.

They say that marijuana hasn’t been linked to increased risk of lung cancer. They even claim it prevents lung cancer. What they don’t acknowledge is that the 2006 study they rely on has been called into question by more recent research. The newer information finds that male marijuana smokers who also use tobacco have double the incidence of lung cancer over non-marijuana using tobacco smokers. Another found that long-term marijuana use increased the risk of lung cancer in adults under the age of 55.

These are the facts: Marijuana contains greater concentrations of many of the carcinogens found in cigarettes. Smoking marijuana causes inflammation and cell damage and has been associated with pre-cancerous changes in lung tissue. Marijuana has been linked to immune system dysfunction that may increase an individual’s risk of developing cancer.*

They say that they would restrict legal marijuana use to only adults, but we’ve all seen how that works in practice. The easiest drugs for young people to obtain are the already legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. There is no track record that suggests marijuana would be different.

Finally, should we really rely on information provided by pro-marijuana groups whose intention is to see their drug of choice legalized when there is unbiased information available from the medical and scientific community whose interests are to keep us healthy and to expand the sum of human knowledge?

*Lynne Eldridge MD, About.com Guide Updated January 19, 2011 http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm