Friday, April 13, 2018

'Vaping': What is it and is it 'safer' than smoking for our teens?

Recently I have received a number of messages from parents wanting to know more about 'vaping'. Each of them had recently found a device in their child's room and had little, or no idea, what it actually was, how it was used and whether it was harmful or not. Here is an edited version of one of the requests for information:

"Last weekend I found a strange-looking device in our son's room. When I asked him what it was he said it was a 'vape'. It looked like a long cigarette and when we asked him why he had it he told us that it was a 'bit of fun' and he and his mates occasionally used it when they got together. He insisted he only used it to do tricks and that these vapes were harmless. We confiscated it anyway and told him we wouldn't allow it in the house. Since then we found out that one of his friends is smoking cigarettes. Our son played it down and said his mate is actually using the device to try to give up smoking. Just last night I found another vape in my son's desk drawer as I was looking for something. I wasn't spying on him - he was in the room at the time. I confiscated it and again I got the same arguments - "Don't be ridiculous mum, these things are harmless" and "I only do tricks on them like blowing round circles!" So now I have two vapes confiscated. What should I do? Are they really harmless? I have got no clue what substance he has inside the vape."

So, what is a 'vape'? Essentially it's a street term for devices usually referred to as 'e-cigarettes'. So what exactly are these and how are they different from traditional cigarettes? More importantly, what are the harms associated with their use, particularly when it comes to young people?

Firstly, let me make it clear that I do not want to try to get into the middle of the debate that has been raging in the smoking cessation area for the past few years. There are some in the tobacco prevention area who believe that e-cigarettes could (and should) play a major role in assisting smokers quit in this country, while there are others who are staunchly opposed to their use and have campaigned (and for the most part been successful) to ensure there is a blanket ban of these devices. My only concern here is for young people and their parents and trying to sort out 'fact from fiction'.

An e-cigarette is a nicotine delivery device that simulates tobacco smoking by producing a vapour. Operated by a battery, it vaporizes a liquid solution (called 'e-liquid' or 'e-juice') which may contain nicotine (amongst other things, including a range of flavours from fruit through to chocolate and bubble-gum) and is promoted by manufacturers as being 'safer' than traditional smoking because it is a tobacco-free product that eliminates the burning process. When the liquid is turned into a vapour, this is inhaled or 'vaped'. Confusing the issue is that many of these e-liquids are nicotine free, with these devices simply releasing a flavoured vapour!

We have little up-to-date data on how many Australian teens are vaping. What we do have suggests that this is an issue that we need to monitor carefully. According to the latest Australian Secondary School Students Alcohol and Other Drugs (ASSAD) study conducted in 2014, 13% of 12-17-year-old students reported that they had ever used an e-cigarette. Use increased with age, from 5% of 12-year-olds to 22% of 17-year-olds, with young men being more likely to say that they had ever tried (one quarter (25.8%) of 17-year-old males), with 7.7% reporting use in the previous four weeks. It is unclear as to whether use has increased since that data was collected but from the anecdotal reports I am getting from schools and parents, it certainly seems as though this issue has not gone away ...

So are these devices legal? It is currently illegal in Australia for commercial retail outlets to sell nicotine e-cigarettes. Regulation of the sale of non-nicotine e-cigarettes continues to vary across Australian state and territory jurisdictions. While nicotine e-cigarettes or the nicotine vial refills may be purchased online for personal use, throughout Australia it is illegal to do this without a medical prescription for nicotine. As far as schools are concerned, most of those I have spoken to about this issue have elected to view these devices as tobacco products, whether or not they contain nicotine, and deal with them accordingly.

I have one major concern about these devices, regardless of whether they contain nicotine or not. We continue to have some of the lowest smoking rates in the world, particularly amongst school-based young people, due in no small part to making smoking be seen as anti-social. Even though e-cigarettes don't involve 'smoking' per se, they still simulate the practice and there is a very real danger that the 'anti-social' message could be eroded over time. This issue is compounded by the number of times you see these devices now being used on American TV programs, particularly comedy shows, where they are usually (but not always) using them to smoke cannabis. Now that cannabis has been legalised for recreational use in California, we are seeing more and more US comedy shows using the vaping (and smoking) of cannabis to get a laugh.

In the mother's message above she talks about her son telling her that he "only used it to do tricks". Type in 'vaping tricks' into YouTube and you will literally see hundreds of videos that have been uploaded by people from around the world. Some of you may remember some of the party tricks that smokers would do back in the days when smoking a cigarette was pretty cool - these vaping videos put all of those to shame! This compilation video of vaping tricks clearly shows why some young people are attracted to these devices. Ok, it's not smoking, but vaping's increased presence on TV shows and in other media certainly increase the visibility (and possibly perceived acceptability) of a behaviour that for a long time was seen in a very negative light, particularly by young people. Most worryingly, smoking (or something that looks a lot like smoking) becomes 'cool' again.

So does the evidence suggest that vaping by teens is a 'gateway' to smoking? As the mother discusses in her message, it would certainly appear that there are some young people who could be vaping in an attempt to quit smoking. The research evidence in this area is mixed and both sides of the e-cigarette debate often throw the same data around to support their particular stand, which makes it even more difficult to sort through! There have been studies that suggests vaping is actually 'replacing' rather than 'encouraging' tobacco smoking amongst young people, while others have found that those who do experiment with vaping are, in fact, actually more likely to become smokers. This is usually explained by the fact that teens who experiment with vaping are more likely to be sensation-seekers, who would be more inclined to try smoking later anyway. Regardless, adolescent vaping cannot be ignored and some parents are going to find themselves faced with having to deal with finding out their teen is using one of these devices.

The one thing that all those in tobacco prevention field agree on is that whatever policy is adopted in the e-cigarette area, it should include some kind of restrictions around vaping by young people. As an excellent article written for the New York Times by Lisa Damour titled 'How to Talk With Teenagers About Vaping' states - "Vaping is generally understood to be less risky than smoking. But not vaping is healthier than vaping". She then goes onto talk through some simple strategies that parents can use in this area. Even though most use by teens appears to be experimental and regular use is rare, what is abundantly clear is that trying to prevent young people vaping is a good idea!

What's my advice for parents in this area and what did I say to the mother who sent me through the message? Firstly, I recommend parents follow how most schools are dealing with these devices - treat them just like you would any tobacco product, regardless of whether they contain nicotine or not. In most cases, parents would have outlined their expectations and values around tobacco smoking and if they then subsequently found their child with a pack of cigarettes, most would confiscate the product and roll out a consequence. You have to make the decision for yourself but as far as young people are concerned, it is most probably best to regard experimenting with smoking or vaping in the same light.

What happened in this mother's case is that she found the product, confiscated it and then made it clear to her son that such a device was not allowed in the house and then he openly defied her. Strike one! He also successfully bamboozled her with information about a product she knew nothing about and left her floundering. She was completely left on the back foot! Strike two! As I always say to parents who contact me when they have found some strange product, device or substance in their child's room, don't react before trying to find out exactly what you're dealing with! By all means remove it if you feel you need to but then do your best to try to find out all you can about what it is as quickly as possible (and don't just rely on what your teen tells you!). The best place to go in the first place is the Alcohol and Drug Information Service in your state and territory (you can find the number for where you live on the DARTA website). This is an anonymous and confidential telephone helpline manned by trained counsellors who should be able to provide you with some advice and information on whatever you may have found.

Vaping is not going to go away anytime soon and parents need to be prepared. Although smoking rates amongst young people are still at an all time low, parents continue to have discussions with their children about this issue. A friend of mine recently told me about a conversation she had with her 5-year-old daughter after she saw a 'no-smoking' sign and wanted to know what it was. When she told her, her child responded with "What's smoking?" It's a wonderful story and shows exactly how far we've come in this area. My advice is to add e-cigarettes to any discussion you may have around smoking - don't force the issue, let it come naturally - but raise it and let your child know exactly where you stand on young people and vaping.
References:
Damour, L. (2018). How to talk with teenagers about vaping. New York Times, February 14. https://ift.tt/2o5NDV6
accessed 13 April, 2018.

Read More »

Can snorting cocaine really cause your nose to collapse?


Can snorting cocaine really cause your nose to collapse? Have the photos you see online of people with one nostril been photo-shopped or can that really happen?

Snorting cocaine can irritate and damage the nose. In extreme cases, such as the ones you may have seen online, the wall that separates the left and right nasal passages (the 'septum') can perforate, making a hole. This can lead the appearance that the two nostrils have become one.

Understanding how the nose is constructed and the characteristics of cocaine will help explain why this happens.

The nasal passages are very delicate and blood vessels in this area are extremely close to the surface. This explains why the drug reaches the brain quickly when snorted. When coke is sniffed mucous production increases. This helps to protect the delicate nasal membranes from ‘foreign bodies’ including cocaine. Apart from a runny nose, some users may find it difficult to breathe through their nose properly as it becomes increasingly stuffy, while others may start to experience nosebleeds. This can lead to the nasal septum dividing the nostrils developing a hole and possibly causing the nose to collapse.

Why does cocaine cause this? Medically speaking cocaine is a vasoconstrictor. This means that the blood vessels constrict, leading to the blood supply being reduced and less oxygen delivered to the nasal passages. This process can cause the delicate nasal passages to shrink and perforate. Put simply, the cocaine puts a 'chemical tourniquet' on the blood supply to the septum leading it to become 'weaker' and more susceptible to damage.

This kind of damage is not the norm. Most cocaine users will not experience this problem. That said, it can happen in extreme cases and is just one of the risks associated with snorting any drug, including cocaine.

First published: April 2018



Read More »

Why can cannabis be found in a drug test for longer than other drugs?


You've said in a previous post that cannabis can be found in a drug test much longer than other drugs. Why is that?

The time that cannabis (or any other drug) can be detected in the body can vary and is influenced by many factors. It can be different for each person, with the same individual possibly even getting different results each time they are tested. There are no guarantees in this area but it is certainly true that cannabis is likely to be identified in a drug test for much longer than other substances.

One of the main active components in cannabis is THC – that's what gets you stoned. Drug tests measure THC, or to be more specific a THC metabolite that shows your body has broken down THC. These metabolites can stick around in the body for a reasonable amount of time mainly due to the fact that when you use cannabis, unlike other drugs, it is stored in the body’s fatty tissue. It is then, over a period of time, released slowly back into the bloodstream.

Drugs such as amphetamine or cocaine are not stored in fat, leading to them leaving the body relatively quickly through a range of bodily functions such as urinating and sweating.

The length of time cannabis can be detected depends on what method of testing is used and the nature and extent of someone’s cannabis use. The more frequently and heavily cannabis is used the longer it may be detected in the body, especially in urine.  Drug tests in the workplace usually use saliva or urine tests. In Australia, police conduct roadside saliva tests for a range of drugs, including cannabis. Blood tests are expensive and invasive, so are used less frequently.

For an occasional light user, cannabis may be detected in the urine for 1 to 5 days following use. For frequent heavy users such as those people who use most days, cannabis may be detected up to 2 months or even longer. Most other drugs, even when used frequently or heavily, are only detectable in the urine for 1 to 3 days.

Cannabis can usually be detected in saliva for up to 6 hours, depending on the test procedure and the person. Government road safety guidelines in Australia state that cannabis can be detected for up to 12 hours in a saliva test. Some people have claimed that cannabis has been detected in their saliva beyond the 12-hour period, in some cases days and weeks after having used the drug.

Cannabis can usually be detected in blood for 24 to 36 hours after use.

First published: April 2018


Read More »

What is fentanyl and why is it so dangerous?


I read that fentanyl was the drug that killed Prince. What is fentanyl and why is it so dangerous?

Fentanyl was first manufactured in 1960 and has become one of the world's most important and frequently used painkillers. It is a synthetic (or man-made) opioid. Opioids, such as heroin, are derived from a substance produced by the opium poppy, morphine. Other opioids include prescribed medications like codeine and oxycodone.

The drug hit the international headlines when it was established that Prince died as a result of a fentanyl overdose. In the US, fentanyl is one of the drugs blamed for the recent increase in drug overdose deaths. Fentanyl-related deaths have been reported in many parts of the world, including the UK. In Australia, 498 deaths were linked to the drug between 2010 and 2015.

Fentanyl is a short-acting opioid that is similar to, but much more powerful than morphine or heroin. As with heroin, in addition to its pain relief properties, fentanyl use can lead to drowsiness, shutting down of the respiratory system, coma and death. There are also many compounds that are similar in structure (referred to as fentanyl analogues) that vary in strength, effects and toxicity. Some of these are far more dangerous and have received a great deal of media attention, e.g., carfentanil.

Pharmaceutical fentanyl is used for managing acute or chronic pain and is available as lozenges, tablets and nasal sprays, patches placed on the skin and an injectable medicine. These prescribed medications can be misused by people for whom it was not intended. Fentanyl is also illicitly manufactured for use in the illegal drug market. In some parts of the world, fentanyl has been reported as being used as a low-cost additive to increase the potency of street heroin.

What makes fentanyl so dangerous? Quite simply, it is all to do with the strength or potency of the drug. A fatal overdose can be caused by a tiny amount of the drug. Fentanyl is reported to be 50-100 times more potent than heroin and carfentanil is 100 times more powerful than fentanyl. This means that a fatal dose of fentanyl may be equivalent to just 4-6 grains of table salt and a fatal dose of carfentanil may be equivalent to a speck of dust so small it may be very hard to see!

It is no surprise that fentanyl has received a great deal of media attention in recent times. It is a powerful painkiller that, when used as prescribed, can make a huge difference to people's lives. Unfortunately, when misused it can lead to people becoming dependent and, as we have seen in the Prince case, overdose and death.

First published: March 2018

Read More »

Is drinking 'straight' spirits more or less dangerous than drinking 'mixed' spirits?


I was wondering if it is better off to drink straight spirits or mixed drinks? For example, in the long-term is drinking vodka more dangerous or damaging on the liver than drinking mixed alcohol? I'm aware that vodka can be consumed faster making it more dangerous but say I was to have the same number of standard drinks over the same amount of time, would straight or mixed alcohol be better health wise?

Is drinking 'straight' spirits more or less dangerous than drinking 'mixed' spirits? Well, it depends ... 

To help drinkers understand the relative strengths of alcoholic products, a 'standard drink' is used as measure of alcohol. In Australia, one standard drink contains roughly 10 grams of pure alcohol. This means that one standard 30ml serving of vodka (a 'shot') is roughly equivalent to a 285ml serving of full-strength beer and a 100ml serving of wine. Therefore, one standard drink of vodka is exactly the same as the equivalent standard drink of beer and wine.

Spirits aren't necessarily any more harmful than other types of alcohol if you drink them at 'safe levels'. Unfortunately, as you have stated in your question, you are able to consume a lot more alcohol by drinking a smaller amount when you drink products like vodka, whiskey or rum. For example, two shots of vodka (60mls) could be consumed in under a minute, whereas for most people it would usually take much longer to drink the equivalent amount of beer (two 285ml glasses). Shots are particularly problematic as they are designed to be drunk in one go.

The speed and ease of drinking spirits increases the risk of a range of acute problems including alcohol poisoning or overdose and, potentially, long-term health problems including liver damage.

Recent studies in Australia have shown that the risk of young people being admitted to hospital with alcohol-related liver disease has risen more than tenfold over five years. The most worrying increase in alcoholic cirrhosis has occurred in those aged 20 to 29, many of whom would have begun drinking in their early teens. Researchers have suggested that this increase could be due to the increase in the consumption of products with high alcohol content, such as spirits. Young women could potentially be at greater risk due to their livers developing at a later age.

So, would it be better to drink 'straight' or 'mixed' spirits? If you were to drink the same number of 'standard drinks' over the same period of time, as you have stated, it should not make a great deal of difference. Drinking spirits 'straight' is not necessarily more dangerous than mixing them with other drinks. But realistically, many people (but certainly not all) would be likely to drink a mixed drink faster than they would a straight spirit, increasing the risk to some degree …

First published: April 2018


Read More »

Why are some drugs legal and others that aren't as dangerous illegal?


Why are some drugs legal (like alcohol) and other drugs that aren't as dangerous (like cannabis) illegal?

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that different drugs affect different people in different ways. Even though some people can use cannabis and not experience any major issues, there are others who will have great problems with this drug. Comparing one drug to another is problematic – all drug use, whether it be legal, illegal or pharmaceutical entails some degree of risk …

With that out of the way, back to your question …

A range of different substances have been consumed for medical, religious and recreational reasons for thousands of years. Western society started to make non-medical drug use illegal in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and when this began to happen, a range of factors determined whether a drug was to be controlled by the full force of law or through taxation and regulations such as age restrictions.

The health or social harm of a drug is not the only the reason why some substances are illegal and others are not. If it were, alcohol and tobacco would surely be made illegal and some illegal drugs may even have some legal restrictions relaxed. Societal attitudes, often reinforced by the news media, moral panics, racism and powerful commercial interests have been proven to play a major part in why we have the drug laws we do …

If we look at some specific examples across time, it may help to illustrate that many of the laws in this area were not originally passed due to concern about health or social harm related to a particular drug.

In the United States, the first drug law was passed in 1875 banning Chinese opium-smoking dens in San Francisco. The reason cited was that women and young girls, as well as "young men of respectable family", were being induced to smoke opium. No action was taken against the producers of opium-based 'cure-all' medicines, which were widely taken by white Americans. The first Australian laws in this area also restricted the smoking of opium whilst allowing the sale and consumption of opiate medicines. Historians have asserted that the primary purpose of the laws was clearly to discourage the entry of Chinese people to Australia, rather than to restrict the importation of opium itself.

In 1937, once again in the US, moral campaigners were able to make cannabis an illegal drug with the introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act. They were able to do this with the help of newspapers that successfully created great fear and concern amongst the general community about the impact of cannabis on American youth, including stories of cannabis smoking Mexican immigrants seducing white women. The ensuing public anxiety led to the drug being banned. Around this time, cannabis was not consumed on a large scale in Australia, although it was available for sale as cigarettes called 'Cigares de Joy' until the 1920s. Partly to comply with international pressure, cannabis use and importation was prohibited in 1926.

The United Nations drafted the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961, effectively criminalising drug production, cultivation, possession and supply across the globe, even though few countries actually experienced domestic drug problems at this time. In the late 1960s and early 1970s many countries including Australia passed laws to enforce the UN Convention.

Unfortunately there is no simple reason to explain why some drugs are legal and others are not. It is quite clear, however, that the legal nature of a particular substance is not always related to the harms associated with the drug. When you closely examine the original reasons behind the introduction of specific laws, they often have to do with a range of historical factors, whether they be based on moral panic, racism or greed. Over time, as we have learned more about the harms associated with a particular substance, the reasons behind laws may actually make more sense in some cases, while in others the decisions may be difficult to justify.

First published: April 2018


Read More »

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Myth: Anyone Experiencing GSA Needs Therapy

Reality: Therapy won’t always be necessary, but since there is so much prejudice against those who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction, someone who is experiencing it might benefit from therapy.

Experiencing GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with the person experiencing it. GSA is a normal, natural reaction to the circumstances.

Being reunited with, or introduced to, a close genetic relative who hasn’t been in your life can be enough to prompt therapy, depending on the situation. Add GSA, and yes, therapy can be helpful.

The prejudices, stigmas, and taboos involved in GSA situations, internalized by those involved or not, can be enough of a burden to make therapy beneficial.

However, not everyone who experiences GSA needs therapy. Some people who experience GSA continue to function well without having had therapy.

If someone does need therapy, it would be helpful if they weren’t ostracized or criminalized, and could find a therapist familiar with the issues involved. This is one reason we need to bring GSA and consanguinamory out of the shadows.

See Myth: Only Someone Who Was Abused or Neglected Experiences GSA

See Myth: GSA is Unnatural

Read More »

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

National Siblings Day

It’s National Siblings Day, at least here in the US. 

In keeping with the interests of this blog, we want to celebrate all people who love their siblings, especially if that includes supporting your sibling as they face discrimination for their gender identity, their sexual or relationship orientations, or their relationships or sexuality.

We also want to celebrate all siblings in consanguinamorous relationships. For many of them, there is no more important person in the world than their sibling(s).

So if you have a good sibling, let them know you appreciate them.

Here's one of many interviews I've done with consanguinamorous siblings. There are more here.

If you have siblings or children or a parent or some other close relative or friends in such a sibling relationship, this is for you.

Sometimes middle-aged siblings experience a change in their relationship dynamic. Unfortunately, siblings are still denied their freedom to marry in most of the world.

Finally, there is some really wonderful, painfully realistic fiction about a sibling relationship.

Comment below or email fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com if you have something you want to share about your sibling(s).


Read More »

Sunday, April 8, 2018

Myth: Only Someone Who Was Abused or Neglected Experiences GSA

Reality: While some people who’ve experienced Genetic Sexual Attraction have been abused or neglected in the past, many people who’ve experienced GSA never experienced serious abuse or neglect.

People who experience GSA come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including warm and loving families as well as abusive childhoods. The only thing, so far, determined to be common to all people experiencing reunion GSA is that they were introduced to, or reunited with, a close genetic relative post-puberty. Abuse is not the cause of GSA.

If you don’t want someone to be abused, don’t abuse people experiencing GSA. Don’t ostracize them for having their feelings. Don’t criminalize their love. Don't deny them their rights.

See Myth: Sex in GSA Relationships Always Means Someone is Being Abused

See Myth: Anyone Experiencing GSA Needs Therapy

Read More »