Youth alcohol and other drug use in the United States and Australia: a cross-national comparison of three state-wide samples

Although youth drug and alcohol harm minimization policies in Australia are often contrasted with the abstinence and zero tolerance policies adopted in the United States, there has been little research directly comparing youth substance use behaviour in the two countries. Three state representative samples in Victoria, Australia (n = 7898) and in the US states of Oregon (n = 15 224) and Maine (n = 16 245) completed a common cross-sectional student survey. Rates of alcohol use (lifetime alcohol use, recent use in the past 30 days), alcohol use exceeding recommended consumption limits (binge drinking: five or more drinks in a session), other licit drug use (tobacco use), and norm-violating substance use (substance use at school, use in the past 30 days of marijuana or other illicit drug use) were compared for males and females at ages 12-17. Rates were lower (odds ratios 0.5-0.8) for youth in Maine and Oregon compared to Victoria for lifetime and recent alcohol use, binge drinking and daily cigarette smoking. However, rates of recent marijuana use and recent use of other illicit drugs were higher in Maine and Oregon, as were reports of being drunk or high at school. In contradiction of harm minimization objectives, Victoria, relative to the US states of Oregon and Maine, demonstrated higher rates of alcohol use exceeding recommended consumption limits and daily tobacco use. However, findings suggested that aspects of norm-violating substance use (substance use at school, marijuana use and other illicit drug use) were higher in the US states compared to Victoria.

Comparison of the structure of adolescent problem behavior in the United States and Australia

Some extant theory and empirical research suggests that youth problem behaviors, such as substance abuse and delinquency, reflect a single underlying dimension of behavior, whereas others suggest there are several different dimensions. Few studies have examined potential international differences in the structure of problem behavior, where cultural and policy differences may create more variation in behavior and different structures. This study explored the structure of problem behavior in two representative samples of youth (ages 12-17) from Maine and Oregon in the United States (N = 33,066) and Victoria, Australia (N = 8,500). The authors examined the degree to which data from the two countries produce similar model structures using indicators of problem behavior. Results show that the data are best represented by two factors, substance use and delinquency, and there appear to be more similarities than differences in the models across countries. Implications for understanding problem behavior across cultural and developmental groups and practical and policy implications are discussed.

A cross-national comparison of risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use : the United States and Australia

Purpose
To compare risk and protective factors that influence youth substance use in Australia and the United States. The two countries have different policy orientations toward substance use: Australia has adopted harm-reduction policies, and the United States has adopted abstinence-focused polices.

Methods
Cross-sectional survey data were collected from independent samples of adolescents in the states of Maine (N = 16,861; 53% female, 7% Non-white) and Oregon (N = 15,542; 51% female, 24% Non-white) in the United States and Victoria in Australia (N = 8442; 54% Female, 11% Non-white) in 1998 (Maine and Oregon) and 1999 (Victoria). Chi-square tests, t-tests, effect size comparisons, and logistic regression analyses that accounted for age and gender were used to investigate cross-national similarities and differences in: (a) rates of cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use; (b) levels of risk and protective factors; and (c) magnitudes of associations between risk and protective factors and substance use.

Results
More adolescents in Victoria reported using cigarettes and alcohol, whereas more of the U.S. adolescents reported using marijuana. Exposure to risk and protective factors was generally similar in the cross-national samples. However, adolescents in Maine and Oregon perceived handguns to be more readily available, reported more participation in religious activities, and were higher in sensation-seeking and social skills; and adolescents in Victoria had more favorable attitudes toward drug use and reported community norms and parental attitudes more favorable to drug use. Most of the risk and protective factors were strongly associated with substance use to a similar degree in Victoria, Maine, and Oregon. However, among adolescents in Maine and Oregon peer/individual risk and protective factors associated with social detachment were more strongly related to substance use, and among adolescents in Victoria, family protective factors were less strongly related to alcohol use.

Conclusions
Inter-country influences on youth substance use are generally similar despite different policy directions. Existing differences suggest that the abstinence policy context is associated with higher levels of illicit drug use and stronger relations between individual indicators of social detachment and substance use, whereas the harm reduction policy context is related to more cigarette and alcohol use, possibly from exposure to normative influences that are more tolerant of youth drug use.

The senseless war : the sentencing drug offenses arms race

There has been a considerable increase in the penalties for drug trafficking following the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, over fifty years ago. In many parts of the world, the sanctions are as severe as those for homicide and rape. This penalty escalation is at odds with the counter movement to decriminalise illicit drugs. Drug supplying is the only serious crime where there are widespread moves to decriminalize the main outcome of the crime – the use illicit drugs. This paper explores this paradox. It also examines the rationales for the increasingly harsh penalties for drug suppliers. We conclude that while there is no conclusive argument in favour of the decriminalizing drugs, the weight of empirical data does not establish any concrete benefits stemming from severe penalties for serious drug offenses. In particular, there is no correlation between longer prison terms for drug offenders and a reduction in the availability and use of drugs. We propose that the penalties for drug offenses should be reduced considerably. There is no useful objective that can be achieved by a twenty-five-year term of imprisonment that cannot be achieved by a term of five to ten years. A more measured sentencing response to serious drug offense penalties would make sentencing fairer and enable billions of dollars currently directed to imprisonment to be spent on more pressing community needs.