What drugs do people take and how often? Where do they buy them? What were the consequences for their health?
These were some of the questions asked by the Global Drug Survey (in partnership with the Guardian and Mixmag), which asked 800,000 drug users from 43 countries around the world about their drug use - from cocaine and cannabis to MDMA and alcohol.
The key findings of the survey and the full data from it are available to read here.
From 4-5pm (BST) Dr Adam Winstock, managing director and founder of Global Drug Survey, will be online to take your questions about the survey. HE trained as both a physician and psychiatrist and has worked in the UK and Australia. He is currently a consultant psychiatrist, addiction medicine specialist and researcher based in London.
First up, we have a question about the survey's aims:
Guardian contributor Hi Sam
We really just want to add data. GDS seeks to become the largest most credible source of current drug use data trends in the world. Accepting that the hidden masses of those who use substances are not the focus of government research or public health interventions, GDS seeks to inform the wider drug using populations about their use of substances in a way that is meaningful, relevant and useful. We strongly support harm reduction and accept that pleasure drives the majority of drug use which for most people most of the time is not a source of distress or harm in their lives. We get information back through our media partners, our apps – the drinks meter (app stores and www.drinksmeter.com) and drugs meter (www.drugsmeter.com) and the new Global Drug Survey Highway Code (www.globaldrugsurvey.com/highwaycode)
We acknowledge that drugs can be harmful but that the risk of harm can be significantly ameliorated by the adoption of common sense risk reduction strategies.
We seek to limit the harm drugs may cause individuals and their communities by being honest, open and transparent about drug use and sharing our findings with the public without government or funder interference .
GDS as an independent research organisation sees its works and data reports as complementing other existing sources of drug use data across the world. We hope that by triangulating data sources public health organisations will be better equipped to craft optimal public health strategies to improve the health and wellbeing of people who use drugs.
Ukslimer asks:
Your report is very clear about the limitations caused by the self-selecting nature of the respondents.
Do you feel that newspaper coverage, especially headlines, adequately reflect those limitations?
Guardian contributor Hi
Great question.
We have had coverage in 16 countries today in 8 languages. We providided the same limitations to everyone and asked them to stress them. We dod this all the time especaill when we write papers. Have they all doen so to the same degree? Nope. Would that get in the way of good headlines? yes. Does that frustrate me - yes . But I think on whole most have said look guys this data has limitations ...as all research does - we jsut wnat to add our data to the sources taht exist already.
Shawad asks:
Guardian contributor Zeit-on-Line were fab. Sven the editor I worked with spent a long time understanding what GDS was about and then ran with it. They ran preparatory stories in the weeks leading up to the launch, interviewed me 3 times, ran a banner advert promoting te survey on the front page and then drug stories throughout the period as well as linking to other drug stuff in their press. Thee uptake was a stready 700- 1000/day for 4 weeks. Both they and NZ (www.stuff.nz) got GDS. The more a media partner put in the more they got out. Also drugs and policy in Germany are very hot topic Zeit-on-Line promoted GDS very well and I am toler thier servceir alsmot crashed today with the hits they got on the 7 stories and intercative graphics tehy ran
And if you're a German-speaker interested in what Zeit Online made of the survey, you can read their coverage here.
Our next question deals with the politics of drugs:
What is your opinion on politicians ignoring the advice of scientists when formulating their drugs policies?
Guardian contributor It is frustrating but I guess they do consider the wider implications of policy change and dont dismiss evidence out right? It is a shame its a polarized debate. While advocates of drug law reform argue persuasively that a drug market free from criminalization would reduce individual and wider societal harms there is also the very real possibility that such changes, especially a regulated market, might be associated with an increase in drug use consequent upon easier access and wider availability. One particular concern is that this would not only lead to increased levels of drug use by those already using illicit drugs but would result in increased’ recruitment’ of drug naïve people (especially younger people) who would otherwise not try drugs. On a population basis any change in drug laws that led to an increase in the numbers of drug users, would not be popular politically and would not be supported by many advocates for public health. This is made on the reasonable assumption that the more people who use drugs, the more drug users with problems there will be. Actually this might not be the case – what you might end up with is a larger number of people who use drugs but with vast majority not experiencing any real harm at all and a very small number with very significant problems (as we do now, but maybe more effectively supported. Refusing to consider an alternative is a worry.
Refusal to look at evidence objectively even when it does not support the outcome you want has a term I learned recently ‘evidence resistance’. People with ‘evidence resistance’ often have an ideological bug. Unfortunately evidence resistance is a virulent and surprisingly potent strain of embedded ignorance. Data from this year’s survey (we asked about how changes in policy might change drug use) suggests that current drug laws promote stigma and can in of themselves be barriers to help seeking. Aside from criminalization, it would seem that current drug laws could potentially make drug use more harmful to the individual by removing them from those who they are closest to and perhaps best placed to help and moderate their use. Either way those in power should feel confident that most people, most of the time will choose things in their lives that makes sense to them and those they care for. When policy matches this ‘common’ sense we will have got somewhere. The only thing is that a policy has to match a country’s culture and the UK could be considered ‘special’
The thing I am keen on at present is to help change the dialogue about harm reduction to include pleasure - that is why we created the highway code (harm redcution voted for by peopel who use drugs) at www.globaldrugsurvey.com/highwaycode
Toby Shew asks:
do you think there is a correlation between certain drugs and global or local economic conditions?
for example is there a trend towards such feel good drugs like MD(M)A in times of economic difficulty?
Guardian contributor Nice idea. I think however it has more to do with availablity and bang fro buck. And I think regardless people will alwasy want good quality drugs. But your suggestion is one we could look at - we have enough data on well-being and drug use to see if certain drugs are correlated with certain well being criteria and in we also have data on personality as well - greta idea - I will suggest it to the team. I think if Durkheim was about he would make a strong case for this. As I type we could even look at trends in well-being and drug use over time and the economic welle bing of the diff countries - so much data - so many ideas and you have added another one - THX
This question comes from darylrevok:
Guardian contributor yes totally - the biggest baddest drug and the one that causes most harm, most worry and yet the one we all feel most comfortable with. Its use in combination with drusg is also what leads many people to A+E. As a general rule drugsd and alochol abre not a great combo. I know many will disagree but that is my experiecne as doctor in A+E at 3 in the morning. And yes it depends on how much of each you take etc
Leave your questions in the comments thread below.
Interesting research, but I wanted to know what you're hoping to achieve with your findings? Is your aim to create a better perspective on drug prohibition and perception?