Drug use by teenagers declines, continues its decline

Associated Press ^ | 12/20/03 | AP

[texasflower]

Why in the world would they do that in your wise opinion?

Personally, I have found teenagers to be proud of their "rebellious acts". They are usually more than willing to brag about this sort of thing. Especially with the anonymity that polls provide.

So, what would they have to gain by altering the poll results?

[SageRat]

Personally, I would always have to be somewhat hesitant to believe that shutting down a LSD plant or simply the awareness of risk would actually cause a decrease in drug use.
From what I have ever been able to tell, the stupid things that people do (adults or children) is almost always based on what is and isn't considered as being cool--regardless of the risk.
Again, shutting down a source of a particular drug should just drive up the price or allow for other manufacturers to increase their business to fill the gap. This is simply a matter of supply-and-demand.
The idea that teens have become more conservative, and thus they have become more realistic in their world-outlook; also sounds false to me. Regardless of political leaning, the only thing I know of to make someone able to look at life with a hard eye is hardship--outside of that and one is still probably just going with whatever sounded coolest at the time.

But, what the reason might be for decreased rates of drug use--I can't admit to having a close enough understanding to assert any preferred response. The only ideas I have at the moment are 1) That they are currently in an off-period of coolness, or 2) The lengthened state of a poor economy has effected the drug market--perhaps kids are getting less allowance, or maybe more adults are buying than before and the dealers are charging higher prices since adults can presumably afford more: Price can effect coolness after all (sour grapes.)

[BlackbirdSST]

As a teacher, from personal experience, it seems crystal clear to me that young people today are becoming more and more conservative. There is no question in my mind.

Accusing another poster of "anecdotal" evidence, a trend you yourself started! As a teacher, you see a slim statistical sample of our kid's from one armpit town in the USA, and make a wild claim based on it. The number's reported in this "survey" from stellar types such as John Walters, are about as believable as your's. I turn 45 Saturday, trust me, we fudged their number's many decades ago, and it has been a concerted effort ever since. Blackbird.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Couldn't agree more!

The so-called 'war on drugs' is corrupt -- it has turned into careers for many who would otherwise have to work for a living, and is now purely about politics and money.

Kids have wised up to the fact that if they answer surveys the 'wrong' way they will get more restrictive legislation thrown at them. They also have moved on to other substances (like glue, and mixing 'legal' drugs to get hallucinogenic effects).

Political contributors (like Wayne Huizenga) are being rewarded (he owns a large block of Psychemedics, a drug-testing company) by the administration promoting their industry, at the same time justifying more money for the WOD by claiming 'progress.'

It's ALL b.s.

[bdeaner]

Accusing another poster of "anecdotal" evidence, a trend you yourself started!

First: There is nothing wrong with using anecdotal evidence in and of itself. However, anecdotal evidence is inferior to empirical evidence. If we couldn't rely on acecdotal evidence, we wouldn't be able to make the kinds of basic decisions we make on a daily basis. But our decisions are biased by cognitive schemas; for example, we tend to notice evidence that confirms our own already entrenched beliefs.

In short: When faced with the choice between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence, the empirical evidence wins. Period.

Second: I did not only cite anecdotal evidence. You only partially quoted my post. Since you have a cognitive schema that biased you from correctly interpreting my post in order to fit your own preconceptions, let me quote it again so you can have another chance to read the whole thing:

"As a teacher, from personal experience, it seems crystal clear to me that young people today are becoming more and more conservative. There is no question in my mind. Surveys I've seen appear to support this trend."

Two parts: First I talk about my personal experience, and then I mention that surveys I've read support this trend. So, I am not only using anecdotal evidence, I am also recalling empirical evidence. If you want citations of empirical evidence, I can get them.

Finally: If you believe these researchers are "fudging" their evidence, that is a serious allogation. If you're going to make those kind of allogations, you should back it up with some evidence; otherwise, it is just hot air. Not only that, it is defamation of character.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

This thread seems most appropriate to wish all a Merry Christmas.

[CWOJackson]

And you didn't ping me?

Merry Christmas, and yes, this is very good news.

[Protagoras]

Please don't ping me to any drug threads if you want me to have a Merry Christmas. Nothing left to be said that I haven't heard. No minds will be changed. Leave me out of it please. thank you.

[bdeaner]

Couple posts on recent surveys:

Survey: More College Freshmen Identify as 'Conservative'

College Students More Conservative than General Public

The trends in these surveys are true to my personal experience as a teacher. In this case, the anecdotal evidence is supported by empirical evidence.

[bdeaner]

So, what would they have to gain by altering the poll results?

Exactly. And, even if kids do have something to gain, they probably would not be motivated by anything that didn't also motivate generations of kids who were surveyed in the past. So, the change is valid even if there are demand characteristics (e.g., if kids were faking good or bad or otherwise biased by the research context), because the demand characteristics have largely remained the same over time.

[robertpaulsen]

Same to you. A great way to end the year.

[presidio9]

but but but...
I was told the War on Drugs was a complete failure!

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[jmc813]

Though as the parents start to be more and more Gen-Xers instead of the selfish, Divorce Prone, Could give a Rats A§§ about their children baby boomers I would expect drug use and all other problems with many kids have had in the past 20 years to decline.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Could you please add me to your ping list?

[jmc813]

This thread seems most appropriate to wish all a Merry Christmas.

Thanks Axel. I'm leaving the office soon and my home PC is still shot for the time being, so I'll take this opportunity to send out my holiday greetings to all of my buddies.

It's been a great year interacting with all of you. Whether I agree with you 90% of the time or 10% of the time, I consider y'all to be my online "friends" who make FReeping fun. Thanks for putting up with me when I'm in an irritable mood, as well as when I'm in a wiseass making-fun mood. Looking forward to another year of this great sociological experiment known as Free Republic.

Warmest Christmas wishes to you and yours. Don't forget the reason for the season!

[tacticalogic]

Looking at their sampling methodology, I don't think a 10% fluctuation due to sampling variance is out of reason, nor do I think it unreasonable to question wheather the "random selections" were entirely random.

I'm sure some people will see this as simply "sour grapes" by someone who just wants to denigrate Bush, but I think the reality is that the grunt work of producing these numbers is being done by career bureaucrats, many of them the same bureaucrats that were there way before Bush. When you tell them "We want to see a 10% reduction in these numbers, or heads are going to roll.", then they'll find some way to produce that 10% reduction. It's not so much an issue of Bush or Walters as it is of the way things work inside the beltway.

[bdeaner]

Looking at their sampling methodology, I don't think a 10% fluctuation due to sampling variance is out of reason, nor do I think it unreasonable to question wheather the "random selections" were entirely random.

There is always the possibility of random error, and perhaps also sampling bias. They are not specific about how they chose their geographical areas, for example. So I think this is a legitimate criticism.

Assuming this is a geniunely random sample, however, it is a good bet, probability-wise, to conclude that there is a significant difference in this newest cohort, compared to past cohorts. I'd be willing to reject the null hypothesis here, but maybe you are looking for more stringent criteria, which is fine too. I can appreciate that.

I appreciate the skepticism, which is the appropriate attitude toward any study such as this. When skepticism crosses over into cynicism, however, I grow a bit concerned.

[tacticalogic]

I may occasionally cross that line into cynicism, particularly where federal bureaucracies are concerned. OTOH, I think the same criticism of a report by the Clinton administration wouldn't have raised an eyebrow here. I don't think it's cynical to doubt that a change of administration is going to have a significant impact on the culture of the beltway in 3 years.

[philman_36]

This reporting is pure BS!
From the report itself...
Overview of Findings from 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
Several improvements to the survey were implemented in 2002. In addition to the name change, respondents were offered a $30 incentive payment for participation in the survey starting in 2002, and quality control procedures for data collection were enhanced in 2001 and 2002. Because of these improvements and modifications, estimates from the 2002 NSDUH should not be compared with estimates from the 2001 or earlier versions of the survey to examine changes over time. The data collected in 2002 represent a new baseline for tracking trends in substance use and other measures.
Snip...(the bold is theirs!)...The conclusion from the results of these analyses is that 2002 data should not be compared with data collected in 2001 or earlier to assess changes over time. Therefore, this report presents data only from the 2002 NSDUH.

You should read the source first, bdeaner, to get the real poop.
Agitprop, pure and simple!

[philman_36]

You've all replied on this thread so you all deserve to see what is in reply 39!

Basically what is happening is that there is nothing in one study so a new study was started to find what was wanted...a decrease in teen drug use.