Banner
    Aging Stoners Tend To Remain Stoners
    By News Staff | April 5th 2012 04:00 AM | 20 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Illicit drug use is more common in older people than ever before - but that's because they did it the most when they were younger and they are more likely than ever to survive into old age.

    New research published in Age and Ageing found that the lifetime use of cannabis, amphetamine, cocaine and LSD in 50-64 year olds has significantly increased since 1993 and is much higher than lifetime use in adults aged over 65. The study also found that drug use in inner London was higher than the overall UK average.

    The study analyzed data on illicit drug use from two household surveys*. The most recent national survey included 2,009 people aged 65 and 1,827 people aged 55-65. The inner London survey included 284 and 176 people in these respective age groups

    Cannabis was the most frequent drug used. Lifetime cannabis use was reported by 1.7% of people aged 65 and over, and by 11.4% of people aged 50-64 in the England sample. In the inner London sample, these proportions were 9.4% and 42.8% respectively. Recent cannabis use (i.e. within the last 12 months) was reported by 0.4% of people aged 65 and over, and by 1.8% of people aged 50-64 in the England sample. In the inner London sample, these proportions were 1.1% and 9.0% respectively. While the series of national surveys carried out from 1993 to 2007 did not contain data on the oldest end of the age range, patterns of cannabis use in middle age were consistent with a rapid increase – in 50-64 year olds, lifetime use had increased approximately ten-fold from 1.0% in 1993 to 11.4% in 2007, and recent use had multiplied by a similar extent from 0.2% in 1993 to 2.0% in 2007.

    Use of other illicit drugs is reported in the paper and remained substantially less common. Lifetime amphetamine use had increased substantially although recent reported use remained uncommon. Tranquiliser use showed more stability.

    Senior author of the study Prof. Robert Stewart, from King's College London, comments that "the key message of this paper confirms something which has been long-suspected but which has not, to our knowledge, ever been formally investigated in the UK – namely that illicit drug use will become a more common feature in older generations over the next 1-2 decades. One particular issue is that we really know very little about the effects of drugs like cannabis in older people but will need to work fast if research is to keep up with its wider use at these ages."

    "Our data suggest at the very least that large numbers of people are entering older age groups with lifestyles about which we know little in terms of their effects on health and would benefit from further monitoring – in particular, health service staff providing care for older people should be aware of the possibility of illicit drug use as part of the clinical context, particularly as previous research and policy reports have suggested that this is often missed."

    Key points

    • Little is known within the UK about the prevalence of illicit drug use in late-life.
    • The prevalence of illicit drug use in English residents aged 65+ years is currently low (for cannabis, the most commonly used: 0.4% recent use, 1.7% lifetime use) but is higher in inner London (for cannabis: 1.1% recent use, 9.4% lifetime use).
    • The prevalence of some illicit drug use in people aged 50-64 years is higher than that in 65+ year olds (recent and lifetime use of cannabis 1.8% and 11.4% respectively in England, 9.0% and 42.8% respectively).
    • Projected increasing use of cannabis in older age groups is confirmed by past trends observed in previous mental health surveys in 1993 and 2000.
    • The clinical and public health relevance of these potential secular changes in both lifetime and recent prevalence is not clear but should be a research priority. There is a need to develop a treatment infrastructure that is sensitive to problems of older illicit drug users.

    Study: 'Prevalences of illicit drug use in people aged 50 years and over from two surveys', Age and Ageing

    Comments

    UvaE
    And the flow of money to organized crime keeps increasing thanks to irrational laws and apathetic users.
    vongehr
    "apathetic users"
    You mean because they do not grow it?
    UvaE
    You mean because they do not grow it?

    or by buying from their local pushers regardless of the network the sellers are part of.
    vongehr
    Righty - but why always these "good arguments" in the wrong place. I mean, if this is a good argument, why not mention it when having to buy gasoline? With my local pot dealer, at least there is a chance that mostly nice people benefit along the way. With the gas pump, not so much.
    UvaE
    why not mention it when having to buy gasoline?
    I do, but it's not quite the same thing. Admittedly, the network that sells gasoline may consistently conspire to price-gouge(at least they do so in Montreal); they mostly pretend to care about environmental issues, and they are directly or indirectly responsible for some military invasions.

    But the network also supplies a highly efficient fuel to people who have a choice not to overuse it; they create honest jobs; and, as you know, refining petroleum also leads to thousands of useful products from asphalt to Vaseline.

    What are the useful spinoff products of the production and recreational use of cocaine, amphetamines and their derivatives?
    How's an adolescent, fleeting and easily-substituted rush from these misplaced molecules a real benefit to people?
    vongehr
    the network also supplies a highly efficient fuel to people who have a choice not to overuse it; they create honest jobs;
    So do dope networks!
    About the rest: Firstly, this article is about weed, not cocaine, and secondly, even if it were about amphetamine, I thought you understood the connection between ADHD and amphetamine use and all that?
    UvaE
    Firstly, this article is about weed, not cocaine,..

    Yes but the position that drugs should be legalized should apply to all drugs and many crime syndicates that I'm familiar with deal indiscriminately with cocaine, pot, hash, and heroin, to name a few. So if person X financially supports organized crime by purchasing weed but not cocaine and feels fine about it, it's a lot like saying, oh, but I buy from Shell and not from Exxon!

    So do dope networks!

    How do dope networks contribute honest work?

    implied: people have a choice not to overuse drugs

    Gasoline is not physically addictive like heroin; it is not as psychologically addictive as cocaine or marijuana. You may object to the latter, but there are a lot of people who have grown so accustomed to smoking that they can't enjoy a party, movie, sports event or a sexual experience without a toke. That sounds like an addiction to me....in fairness, there are people who feel they have to drive everywhere to change their state of consciousness.

    vongehr
    Enrico, sorry, but you need to think a little harder about these issues and stop answering with convenient platitudes that go well with a certain target audience I do not care for.
    the position that drugs should be legalized should apply to all drugs
    No it should obviously not if indeed there were a very dangerous drug for example. This article is about weed.
    crime syndicates that I'm familiar with deal indiscriminately with cocaine, pot, hash, and heroin,
    Nonsense - especially with pot you easily find more or less local growers while with cocaine and heroine there is always a chemical lab involved. Anyway - it does not matter - those syndicates are violent because they started out as local labor movements trying to support poor farmers. They have been turned violent by the US making countries like Mexico kill them because the right wing does not like unions etc. Don't believe all the lies: those fights in Mexico and South America are not about nice people fighting gangs - they are political!
    How do dope networks contribute honest work?
    What else could be more upright and honest than supplying medicine to people who are denied healthcare? Drug use is all about self-medication in a society that is otherwise almost unbearable for most of the exploited souls. That you are simple minded and rich etc. enough to be able to stand it without more potent chemical help does not entitle you to disregard and distort the needs of the large majority of people.  
    Gasoline is not physically addictive like heroin; it is not as psychologically addictive as cocaine or marijuana.
    Nonsense nonsense nonsense. Go try a lower middle class life in the US without touching gasoline. Good luck. And about the addiction potential of the drugs you mentioned: What about you first read up on the science before simply helping to spread complete nonsense? This is a science site, you know, well, at least it claims to be.
    there are a lot of people who have grown so accustomed to smoking that they can't enjoy a party, movie, sports event or a sexual experience without a toke.
    And what do you derive from that, for example about socially endorsed entertainment and socially acceptable party conversation? And why is that addiction rather than simply showing how harmless weed is and that there are people who always toke instead of always being on Prozac? You know that those millions on prozac are always on prozac, right? Always - whether they go to a party or sporting event or having sex! I do not see you writing anything about addiction to prozac and how modern psychiatry is just the same as heroine and cocaine. Why you feel that you can write such nonsense about weed?
    UvaE
    Go try a lower middle class life in the US without touching gasoline.
    I grew up in a lower middle class family, and we didn't have a car until I was ten.
    Enrico, sorry, but you need to think a little harder about these issues and stop answering with convenient platitudes that go well with a certain target audience I do not care for.
    I'm not  trying to please a target audience. It's what I genuinely feel to be true, although I realize that although total legalization would lessen the severity of the problem, we would still be facing serious issues.

    Ditto, if marijuana alone was legalized. Yes it's far better than tobacco and hard liquor, and yes it can alleviate side effects of chemotherapy, but I wouldn't want my daughter smoking it because I've seen what it does first hand to literally hundreds of people.

     
    vongehr
    I've seen what it does first hand to literally hundreds of people.
    Why should we take such any more serious than somebody knowing hundreds of children who got autistic through their vaccination regime? What are you even talking about? You are aware that with the situation being as it is, only non-conform start using in the first place? Is it that you object to stoners often realizing that life is not there to work 50 hours a week to be able to afford an endorsed life style while once in a while buying green perhaps or in other sanctioned ways being "ethical" that won't harm "progress"? Is it that you are envious of them having found a way out while you are still too afraid to rattle your chains? What is it?
    Gerhard Adam
    ...we would still be facing serious issues.
    We are already facing serious issues and they are not going away.  Keeping the drugs illegal simply exacerbates the problem.
    ...I wouldn't want my daughter smoking it because I've seen what it does first hand to literally hundreds of people.
    I think you're conflating people's attitudes and personalities with the effects of the drug. 
    UvaE
    Keeping the drugs illegal simply exacerbates the problem.
    Of course. That's what I've stood by since I was 15, and that's what I said during the marathon of comments. I was just implying that drug education will have to continue once drugs become legal because not all will be rosy.
    I think you're conflating people's attitudes and personalities with the effects of the drug.
    Probably true. In retrospect this whole discussion is actually a lower caliber version of the one following my article The Real Roots of Organized Crime.
    MikeCrow
    I was just implying that drug education will have to continue once drugs become legal because not all will be rosy.

    Absolutely, we'd be far better off spending money on education and treatment, than interdiction, which doesn't work and causes violent crimes.
    None of the drugs of choice are expensive to make, they're expensive because they're illegal. You don't see many wino's robbing people at gun point so they can get $5 to buy a bottle of wine.

    Unfortunately, I think there's as many in the drug trade as there are in law enforcement who want it to remain illegal.
    Never is a long time.
    MikeCrow
    Drug use is all about self-medication in a society that is otherwise almost unbearable for most of the exploited souls. That you are simple minded and rich etc. enough to be able to stand it without more potent chemical help does not entitle you to disregard and distort the needs of the large majority of people.

    Sascha, this is non-sense. I'm not saying it isn't true in some cases, but to say this is the cause is absurd, your "10 years in California" isn't proof either. And, if it is all about the unbearable exploration, what's your excuse? What was the excuse of the many dozens of well off and middle class friends I had in school who did drugs daily?

    They have been turned violent by the US making countries like Mexico kill them because the right wing does not like unions etc.

    How does someone who seems to be so smart come up with such drivel?
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    One particular issue is that we really know very little about the effects of drugs like cannabis in older people but will need to work fast if research is to keep up with its wider use at these ages.
    What's that about?  Is this our scientific nanny coming to the rescue?  Are we to conclude that the "science" will say that it is beneficial to older people?  Well, I wouldn't hold my breath, so what is this speedy research that we need to catch up on?  Just more finger-wagging at people that couldn't care less?
    vongehr
    know very little about the effects of drugs like cannabis in older people but will need to work fast if research is to keep up  ... What's that about?
    The usual "you will get addicted and may not fit into the work force and beware the conceivable long term effects that have never been shown but may be there nonetheless" is not working with people who already toke for 30 years, retired, and don't have a long term left anyway. So, much new research must be funded in order to be able to selectively publish studies that find marginal short term correlations with elderly subjects, anything that seems to worsen Alzheimers or prostate cancer will do.
    John Hasenkam
    The below might come as a surprise to some. Not so much to me because I know enough about the neurprotective and in particularly anti-inflammatory qualities of THC and CBD. Additionally, and with respect to aging brains, THC is a post synaptic inhibitor by inhibiting calcium update in the pre-synaptic cell and excessive calcium influx is a very big problem for neurons. 
    My approach is simple: if a person can meet their obligations, be a good citizen, I don't care what they do so long as they don't hurt other people. For me, the rest is moralising. I have no doubt that a continual marijuana habit will decrease productivity for most but that is just a moral argument. Sometimes I think modern governments have no interest in freedom and are only interested in making the rats run faster and faster. 

    -----
    "Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained. ... For comparison, an IQ decrement of 5 points has been observed in children exposed prenatally to 3 alcoholic drinks per day, of 3.75 points in offspring exposed prenatally to cocaine and of 2.6 points after low lead exposure. ... Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent." claims Peter Fried, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, Apr 2 2002, 166(7), pg 887, 890. 


    ------

    If people are so worried about cognitive decline they might want to consider ... 

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7298 


    'Info-mania' dents IQ more than marijuana


    John Hasenkam
    So, much new research must be funded in order to be able to selectively publish studies that find marginal short term correlations with elderly subjects, anything that seems to worsen Alzheimers or prostate cancer will do.  

    In other words - give me more money to research cannabis in elderly individuals because it represents a new research opportunity and I can't justify replicated yet again the same old crap. That's all it is. If anything the literature indicates cannabinoids will inhibit dementias. I have read a number of studies where it clearly inhibits amyloid toxicity. A THC analogue, with 100 times the affinity for the CB1 receptor, was shown to induce neurogenesis. Hu211 I think. 


    As for the addiction issue, read about Rat Park. If people want to understand why social impoverishment and addiction go hand in hand they should look at research showing how early impoverishment in particular induces physiological changes that on current evidence promote the propensity towards addiction. Addicts are a real problem, if you want to solve that problem and excessive drug use in general the best way to do that is to create cultures that do not create large under classes. The poor will always be with us but that doesn't mean we should give up the good fight. 


    Sascha, you are one of the few people I have encountered who has made an honest effort to understand this issue. Some times I think most people are just relying the crap mass media stuff, politicians, and so called experts(too often just lackeys for the status quo), to inform them. 
    John Hasenkam
    The below news item just came up today. An extract: 

    We have to find new solutions to Latin America's drugs nightmare

    Narcotics should be legally available – in a highly regulated market



    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/07/latin-america-drugs-nightmare  

    So, decades of big arrests and the seizure of tons of drugs and yet consumption and production of damaging substances are booming 

    ---

    This week the Aust Govt commissioned enquiry into the drug wars made the assertion that decriminalisation and harm minimisation must be the priorities in the fight against drugs. The report stated that the war was lost and drugs are more readily available today than decades ago. Within days, probably having not read the report let alone thought about it, the Australian Prime Minister outright rejected the commission's recommendations. 

    Some current drugs can be incredibly destructive. We aint seen nothing yet. The current strategy has failed. As paradoxical as it seems there is now evidence that in countries where they have decriminalised the rate of drug use actually declines. I have no way of understanding this and do not think it would be a universal trend but what it indicates is that the claims of some that decriminalisation will lead to hell and damnation is just fear mongering. 

    The elephant in the room is this: there is already evidence that synthetic drugs are coming onto the market in a big way. For eg. The THC analogues are now on the street and can be up x100 times as potent(at least by receptor affinity) than THC from pot. They are putting teenagers into psychiatric institutions at alarming rates. Moreover these synthetic variants contain very little if any CBD and the research suggests that CBD acts as an antipsychotic. The drugs wars encouraged the cultivation of high THC-low CBD marijuana strains and this does create very real problems for teenage brains. Now this trend is in a whole new territory and nothing in heaven and on earth will prevent the flood of synthetic psychoactive substances.  
    UvaE
    The elephant in the room is this: there is already evidence that synthetic drugs are coming onto the market in a big way. For eg. The THC analogues are now on the street and can be up x100 times as potent(at least by receptor affinity) than THC from pot.
    No doubt. That's one of the consequences of making marijuana illegal. I wrote about these THC analogues in Black Mamba Spice: A Cannabinoid Cocktail