1. Change in paradigm useful for Scotland? Victor Everhardt Head Prevention Unit veverhardt@trimbos.nl

2. 2025 Half the problem 50% prevalence rate: – young people that drink alcohol? – The general population that use drugs? – Last month, life time? Only 200 drug related death? Prevalence rate of HIV/Aids among idu? Half of the current idu’s are changing the dragon?

3. 2025 War or Peace? Roll back option, drug free society Containment, Mr Costa (UNODC) Layers of defence strategy: prevent- treat-reduce health & social damage

4. Modesty On the outcome of a Drug policy On the contribution of Prevention On treatment opportunities for a chronic disease like drug use

5. WHO recommendations (alcohol) Integrated approach Price Availability

6. What about effectiveness of a drug policy Integrated approach? Price? (XTC - precursors) Availability? (The Taliban)

7. Integrated approach Models of coordination structure some examples France: MILDT Hungary: State secretary Sweden: National board The Netherlands: Ministry of Health

8. Integrated approach Strategy and Action plans All over in the EU Mid term reviews Realistic goals reached? Evaluation process: only two examples Hungary (on the process) & Portugal (midterm)

9. Drug Policy Portugal The strategy has had a positive impact in many ways: – There has been an increase in the numbers of drug users attending prescribing services. – The number of drug users with AIDS decreased absolutely and relatively to the total number of people with AIDS. – Drug related deaths more than halved from 369 in 1999 to 152 in 2003.

10. Drug Policy Portugal “The evaluation of the strategy,which remains ongoing, has proved coherent and useful; in the past evaluative work was more dependent on the scientific interests of local university departments rather than on trying to construct a robust and global evidence base”.

11. Drug Policy Portugal Challenges for the future 1.Ensuring that quality treatment is also available for those with different drug use profiles than the traditional problematic heroin user. 2 Re-affirming the importance of drug prevention work, which has been somewhat overlooked in some areas since the increased focus on treatment and harm reduction.

12. A National Drug Monitoring system Every year an update of facts & figures Basis for a realistic political debate Basis for adjusting it’s strategy Basis for new topics for research

13. From Policy Paper to Practice Quality and Professional attitude Salary and other rewards Long term or short term commitment of the money suppliers Cooperation and Equality between partners Management of expectations

14. Cyclic quality model

15. Practice in Europe No steady influx of money (financing of projects in stead of long term commitment) Ideology and no real Pragmatism Too strong belief in the benefits of prevention

16. Scotland, opportunities for a paradigm shift High Prevalence rate Absence of a (new) national strategy and action plan on drugs

17. Scotland, opportunities for a paradigm shift 2 Drug related deaths in Scotland: 420. – 10 x rate of The Netherlands Prevalence rate of heroin users in Scotland: 50.000 – 5 x rate of The Netherlands

18. Recent (last year) use of cocaine among young adults (15–34 years)

19. Trends in recent (last year) amphetamine + ecstasy use in young adults (15–34 years)

20. Trends in recent use (last year) of cannabis among young adults (aged 15–34)

21. What is needed Formulating of realistic goals with clear ambitions Investment in: – a: monitoring and evaluation – b: the workforce & quality of the work process – c: long term commitment of the investors – d: a clear coordination structure

22. Belief in prevention Too strong belief in the benefits of prevention Lessons from Portugal: Re-affirming the importance of drug prevention work, which has been somewhat overlooked in some areas since the increased focus on treatment and harm reduction.

23. Assumptions Knowing is doing Fear facilitates behaviour change Not using drugs is a question of strong will / character Drug use is per se negative

24. Findings from evaluation of school-based (primary) prevention (1) Substantial effect on knowledge Some programs have small effect on substance use – At best 8 – 10% reduction – These effects decrease over time and have disappeared after 2 / 3 years – Thus, best effect delay in onset Most (about 75%) prevention programs do not have an effect on substance use → DARE programme (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), Best programs focus not only on information about the substances, but also on the reasons for using, peer pressure, and generic life skills

25. Findings from evaluation of school-based (primary) prevention (2) Some evidence on effectiveness of following components: Interactive methods (with a focus on discussion among students themselves, use of peer leaders, role playing, in stead of non-interactive presentation of knowledge by teachers); The social influence model as a theoretical basis of the prevention program (this model says that prevention may be inoculation to peer pressure to use substances); Adding generic life skills (such as social skills, cognitive skills, problem solving skills) to a curriculum); Programs led by 'peer leaders' have a larger effect than programs led by adults, but only on the short term; Cognitive behavioural programs have larger effects; Programs aimed at the school environment have larger effects than curriculum only programs.

26. Findings from evaluation of other forms of (primary) prevention (2) Mass media campaigns seem to have little or no effect on substance use, knowledge about substances and attitudes towards substance use Mass media campaigns effective in agenda setting but not in behaviour change Fear-based campaigns in-effective or even counterproductive

27. What do we know? Knowledge is essential but does not result in behaviour change Prevention can delay onset Fear does not help Lifetime prevalence is high – prevalence of regular use is relatively low Experimenting and – to a lesser degree - regular substance use of legal and illegal substances widespread among young people

28. What can we conclude? People love / believe in primary prevention even it is not really effective People reject / don’t believe in evidence that primary prevention is not effective The traditional concept of primary prevention is belief-based

29. What can we do? More realistic approach: Drug prevention as stepped approach aiming at: Media advocacy Supporting abstinence Delaying onset Mindful / sensible coping with drugs Reduction of frequency / dosage Limiting possible health damage → Risk management / harm reduction