Twitter

About half (51 per cent) reported that there has been an increase in the involvement of alcohol in family violence situations since the COVID-19 restrictions were introduced, while 40 per cent said alcohol’s involvement had not changed and none of the respondents reported decreased involvement.

Current issues with alcohol use and family violence identified included: » increased alcohol use because of changed circumstances » alcohol use increasing verbal and physical abuse » alcohol adding to financial strain on the family.

FARE Report May 2020

Twitter

The findings are reported as use of cannabis during pregnancy has 'skyrocketed'

Date: September 23, 2020 Source: Washington University in St. Louis

While cannabis use during pregnancy is on the rise, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis have found evidence that the resulting children are more likely to have psychopathology in middle childhood.

"There have been increasingly permissive and lenient attitudes toward cannabis use among pregnant people," said Sarah Paul, a clinical psychology graduate student. "It has skyrocketed in the past few years," she added, with data indicating a quick rise from 3% to 7% past-month use.

"Unfortunately, despite the increase in use, we know remarkably little about the potential consequences of prenatal cannabis exposure," Paul said. "Prior studies have linked prenatal cannabis exposure to birth-related outcomes such as lower birth weight and infant characteristics like disrupted sleep and movement. Relatively fewer studies have examined behavior and problems as children age," and, she said, "findings have been tenuous due to inconsistent replication and an inability to account for potential confounding variables."

Their findings were published today in JAMA Psychiatry.

They looked at data from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study (ABCD Study), an ongoing longitudinal study of nearly 12,000 children ages 9-11 and their parent or caregiver from 22 sites across the United States that began in 2016.

The researchers grouped participants into three mutually exclusive groups: Children who were not exposed to cannabis prenatally; children who were prenatally exposed to cannabis before the pregnancy was known, but not after; and children who had been exposed to cannabis after the pregnancy was known, regardless of exposure before.

The data showed children who were exposed to cannabis in the womb (regardless of when that exposure occurred) were slightly more likely to have adverse outcomes. They had elevated psychopathology -- more psychotic-like experiences; more problems with depression and anxiety as well as impulsivity and attention; and social problems as well as sleep disturbance. They also had lower cognitive performance, lower indices of global brain structure during middle childhood as well as lower birth weight.

"Cutting to the chase ... clinicians and dispensaries should discourage cannabis use among those who are pregnant or are considering becoming pregnant.

"However, when we look at exposure after maternal knowledge of pregnancy, which corresponds to when endocannabinoid type 1 receptors are expressed in the fetal brain, the associations with child psychopathology largely remain -- these children tend to have more psychotic-like experiences, more impulsivity and attention problems, and social problems," he said. "This raises the intriguing possibility that prenatal cannabis exposure may plausibly impact child behavior. It in no way shows causation, but documenting that effects are independent of common confounding factors provides incremental support for potential causation."

"Being attentive to substance use problems among family members and providing them with support and access to help is critical for anyone regardless of pregnancy status," Bogdan said. "Learning of one's pregnancy may produce additional reason to stop use. Someone who has just learned of a pregnancy and has previously used cannabis, might think, well I have already exposed the fetus to cannabis, so I may as well not stop. The current data might provide the clinician and parent-to-be with evidence that stopping after learning of the pregnancy may reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes among their children."

From a public health perspective, Bogdan suggested looking to the highly effective public health campaigns and clinician attention directed at reducing the use of tobacco and alcohol during pregnancy. In fact, he said, "This study found that prenatal cannabis exposures were more strongly and consistently associated with adverse child outcomes than prenatal tobacco or alcohol exposure."

For complete article

Twitter

“Harm-reduction” advocates do little more than pass out drug supplies to the sick and dying.

Erica Sandberg September, 2020 

San Francisco has a serious drug problem, particularly among its homeless population. Roughly 8,000 people live on the city’s sidewalks or in its alleyways, public parks, and playgrounds. People with needles in their arms and legs, holding glass pipes and lighters, are a regular sight. Users go limp in doorways and tents, or they career about, dazed and distraught, or angry and violent. Dealers selling heroin, Fentanyl, methamphetamine, and crack are ubiquitous.

So, too, are the advocates for “harm reduction,” which holds that widespread drug use should be accepted but its worst effects mitigated. Organizations such as the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the Harm Reduction Coalition, the Drug Users Union, and even the Department of Public Health, in partnership with The DOPE Project, focus almost exclusively on “safe drug use.” In fact, the Drug Users Union’s goal is “to create a safe environment where people can use & enjoy drugs as well as receive services.” This attitude led to today’s humanitarian crisis: thousands of people living on San Francisco’s streets, languishing in an endless cycle of homelessness and addiction.

Every day of the week, nonprofits and churches such as Glide Memorial partner with the city to distribute drug use supplies to addicts at designated pick-up points. With an empty backpack, I visited three such spots recently in a single afternoon.

Through open doorways, friendly workers asked what I needed. They suggested items and eagerly gave me what asked for—needles (what size?), naloxone (do you know how to use it? Here, let me show you!), rubber tourniquets to pop my veins, little metal cookers for my dope, sharps containers, sheets of foil and straws for Fentanyl, and mounds of alcohol pads, gauze, and bandages. My backpack was soon bursting; I collected 170 needles.

Not one person asked if I was interested in treatment. No one discussed detox or gave me a flyer with listings for local 12-step meetings. No one inquired about my physical or psychological wellbeing. I could have anything I wanted—except for help getting off drugs.

The idea of harm reduction seems noble. Access to clean needles reduces diseases like hepatitis and HIV, and naloxone can bring overdosing people back from the brink of death. Carefully monitored methadone-maintenance programs can return individuals struggling with opiates to a more stable life.

Harm reduction has mutated from ameliorating the collateral negative effects of addiction to promoting drug use as a positive lifestyle choice. Yet the lives of San Francisco’s addicts clearly aren’t improving. They’re sicker, more numerous than ever, and dying in staggering numbers. The body count is rising from Fentanyl, the highly potent synthetic opioid that has become the substance of choice. Last year’s 441 overdose deaths represented a 70 percent increase, and 2020 will likely be another record-breaking year.

Still, true believers carry on, convinced that they’re doing right by helping addicts do more drugs. It’s an unconscionable position. All people deserve a chance to live free of the substances preventing them from a healthy, self-sufficient life. They need someone to say, “I believe in you; let me help you escape addiction,” not, “You’re a drug user, let me help you remain an addict.”

Question the self-described experts, though, and you’re dismissed as a rube, even as their grand experiment—the giant petri dish of San Francisco—is evidence that they’ve failed.

Condoning illegal drug use means accepting everything that accompanies the business: human trafficking, sexual exploitation, political corruption, and environmental disaster. Recognizing these connections is essential. It’s why we condemned the ivory trade and child labor. Why do we now give a nod to illegal drugs that perpetuate some of the worst crimes known to man?

We can change course and focus on recovery. Options exist. The Salvation Army Harbor Light Center gives homeless individuals and families a place to stay while they pursue sobriety; the San Francisco Adult Probation Department’s reentry division gives newly released prisoners up to a year in residential drug-treatment programs. It’s time to invest in organizations like Community First Village in Austin, Texas, which recognizes that possession of controlled substances is illegal and provides permanent housing to the chronically homeless—with a work requirement. Residents are expected to abide by the law and take advantage of on-site rehabilitation and counseling. Such organizations give more to those they help by expecting more of them.

Drug addicts need a lifeline, not a millstone. For those who doubt that it’s time to push back against harm-reduction advocates who do little more than throw fresh needles, fentanyl foil, and meth pipes at the sick and dying, I have a suggestion: come to San Francisco and have a look around.

For complete story

Further Resources

• ‘Harm reduction’ drug policies are destroying San Francisco
• Drug Policy – Changing the Narrative: Prevent Don’t Promote
• Drug Use, Stigma & Proactive Contagions to Reduce Both.
• Help! I Need to Stop This!
• 30 Years of Harm Minimisation – How Far Have We Come?

Twitter

The COVID‐19 pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on every aspect of our lives, including the way we drink alcohol. The Australian Government has implemented strict social distancing measures to contain and prevent the spread of the virus, including requiring all food and drink premises to close or only offer takeaway and home delivery. New South Wales (NSW) Liquor and Gaming has responded to these measures by temporarily relaxing liquor licensing restrictions to allow any licensed premises, including restaurants, cafes and small bars, which do not usually have the authorisation to sell alcohol for off‐premise consumption, to sell alcohol for takeaway and home delivery. Similar measures have also been introduced in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia.

With families already under financial and psychological stress as a result of the pandemic, increased alcohol use at home has the potential to exacerbate problems further. Harmful alcohol use is linked to a range of negative effects in families, from adults modelling poor drinking behaviours to children, to domestic violence and child neglect. According to data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, around 30% of recorded domestic violence‐related assaults in 2019 were flagged by NSW Police as alcohol‐related. Harmful alcohol use by carers is also a factor in an estimated 21–54% of child abuse and neglect cases in Australia, with alcohol more likely to be involved in more serious cases

For complete research

Twitter

It is way past time to promote drug use exiting recovery, not simply 'harm reduction' mechanisms that only sustain on going drug use. If there is no focus on an exit strategy from the 'Harm Causer' - the drug, then we are are simply putting 'Band-Aids' on gangrenous wounds.

Read More