Category Archives: Drugs

Some of the effects of alcohol use – a Christian response

By Spencer D Gear

To discuss alcohol or no-alcohol use with evangelical Christians is like opening up the topic of speaking in tongues, eternal security or millennial views. If you don’t believe me, please take a read of some of the discussion on the blog, Christian Fellowship Forum, “Request” (posts 18-72; I’m ozspen).

This is part of what the Australian government, Department of Health and Ageing, says about alcohol:

Due to the different ways that alcohol can affect people, there is no amount of alcohol that can be said to be safe for everyone. People choosing to drink must realise that there will always be some risk to their health and social well-being.

What about drinking alcohol during pregnancy? This research, “Alcohol in pregnancy: What questions should we be asking?” stated:

If you are planning a pregnancy, are pregnant or are breastfeeding, it is safest if you do not drink alcohol at all. Drinking alcohol may cause harm to your baby. At high levels it can also harm your health. There is no evidence for a safe level of drinking in pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Either stopping or dinking less alcohol at any time during your pregnancy will reduce the risk of harm to your baby.

Benefits of stopping drinking include reduced risk of:

  • alcohol crossing the placenta into your baby’s bloodstream;
  • miscarriage, bleeding, premature birth and stillbirth;
  • Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). This can lead to learning difficulties, poor coordination, slow physical and mental development and defects of the face, heart and bones….

Breastfeeding: If you drink, breast milk will contain alcohol. This can:

  • affect the development of your baby’s brain;
  • affect your baby’s ability to feed;
  • reduce the milk supply available to your baby (p. 65).

Other Christians who join me in opposing the use of alcohol are:

To drink or not to drink? We have taken a sober look at the question. What is the answer? Just say No! Why? Because drinking alcoholic beverages is unbiblical, deadly, addictive, unhealthy, costly, a bad example, not edifying, and unnecessary. Clearly, total abstinence is the safest policy.

Why then is our society in general—and evangelical Christianity in particular—on such a self-destructive alcoholic course. Hosea gave part of the answer: ?My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge? (Hos 4:6). The rest of the answer lies is in resisting temptation. The Bible declares that no temptation (including drugs) is too strong to resist: ?No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but will with the temptation also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it? (1 Cor 10: 13). Mark Twain once said of the temptation to gamble that the best toss of the dice is to toss them away.

Likewise, the best use of the beer can is to toss it into the reprocessing bin—after the contents have been poured down the drain!

Land and Duke conclude their study with these recommendations:

In conclusion, we offer five general principles that the Christian would do well to follow when he is making a decision about alcohol use or any other activity. First, the lordship of Christ takes priority. Christians are not free to do anything they please. They belong to Christ and should make every effort to engage in behavior that honors his lordship over their lives. Paul provides the definitive expression of this principle: ?For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:20). Second, selfishness should be shunned. Selfishness is the root of all sin. It leads people to seek their own interests, even to the detriment of others. The biblical guidance is clear: ?Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor (1 Cor 10:24). Third, sacrifice is a Christian virtue. The needs of others must overrule our own exercise of freedom. Paul taught, “But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Cor 8:9). Someone might say that the weaker person is the one with the problem and that stronger Christians should not allow weaker ones to impose standards on them that God has not required. Paul does not qualify his statement, however. In fact, he exaggerates this principle of sacrifice for the weaker Christian, declaring, “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (1 Cor 8:13). Jesus provides the supreme example of such a sacrificial mentality. He recognized the human need for forgiveness and willingly gave up his rightful place in heaven, took on human flesh, and sacrificed his life on the cross for the sake of others. We are not saying that it is not the right of Christians to drink alcohol if they choose to do so. We are saying that Christians should not consider that their rights are more important than their responsibilities to live in such a way that their fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord are not offended.

We recognize that this is not always practicable. Christian legalism, for example, may become so demanding that it creates an unrealistic intrusion into the lives of other Christians. When this occurs, Christians should not feel bound to accommodate these expectations. For some, the issue of alcohol use is such an intrusion, but we ask how the Christian is harmed or his spiritual liberty is hindered if he abstains from drinking alcohol for the sake of his fellow believers? Alcohol consumption is not the same as some other activities legalistic Christians might expect others to give up. Alcohol is a dangerous drug which has and continues to devastate millions of people. When one refrains from drinking alcohol, he is avoiding an activity that is not only offensive to some, but that is deadly to many. This seems to us to be an appropriate application of the principle of sacrifice.

Fourth, God‘s glory should be the most important concern for Christians. With every activity, the Christian should ask whether or not God will be glorified. Paul summarized, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31). We ask any Christian who chooses to drink alcohol whether God is glorified more by the one who drinks or by the one who abstains. Considering the principles we have already laid out, it seems obvious to us that God is glorified most by the Christian who abstains. There is no glory for God in the willful pursuit of pleasure that has no regard for one‘s influence or effect on others.

Finally, the Christian must remember that he will be judged for his every deed, both those that affect his own life and those that affect the lives of others. Paul counsels, “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (1 Cor 11:31). Whether in this life or the life to come, God will hold Christians accountable for their behavior. It does not even matter whether or not we believe we are justified to engage in certain activities. The real question is whether or not God thinks we are. Given the current problems alcohol is causing in our culture, the potential that our drinking has in influencing others to drink, and the many health problems associated with alcohol, it is inconceivable that God considers recreational or social drinking to be the best choice a committed Christian can make. Every Christian should live to hear his Lord declare, “Well done, good and faithful servant “, throughout each day of his life and ultimately on that final day of judgment which awaits us all.

We have supported these five principles with passages from one book of the Bible, Paul‘s first letter to the Christians at Corinth. It should not come as a surprise that so many principles for spiritual decision making would be found in this letter. The church at Corinth was evidently one of the most carnal and immature fellowships of Christians with whom Paul had to deal. This is unfortunate, but not unexpected. The culture in
Corinth was one of the most debased in the Roman Empire. It was so bad that the term “Corinthianized” became the word of choice throughout much of the Roman Empire to describe someone who had fallen into the darkest depths of immoral behavior. Unfortunately, some of the Christians who came out of that cultural morass brought their liberated mindset into the church in Corinth. Paul‘s extant letters to that church reveal the extent of the problem their attitudes were causing. Paul found it necessary to counsel the Christians who had escaped the immorality of their debauched culture to ?be imitators? of him (1 Cor. 4:16). He also shared many principles for faithful living with them. American Christians find themselves currently in the midst of an increasingly secular and immoral culture—a culture devastated by alcohol abuse. Today‘s Christians run the same risks that they too will become influenced by a mindset too fixed on personal pleasure and liberty. We would do well to follow Paul‘s counsel as well and apply the principles he shared with our Christian counterparts nearly 2,000 years ago.

Kenneth Gentry supports the “moderation” view in, “The Bible and the question of alcoholic beverages”. His conclusion is:

The thrust of my study is intentionally narrow. My concern is to present the biblical data regarding the general question of the morality of alcohol consumption. Though other issues might tangentially bear upon the topic, the ultimate issue in the debate should be, ?What saith the Lord?? Or to put it in contemporary parlance, we might ask, “What would Jesus do?” And we have seen that he would make wine and drink it (John 2:1–11; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34).

In the final analysis it is quite clear that Scripture neither urges universal total abstinence nor demands absolute life-long prohibition.

Although alcoholic beverages can be, have been, and are presently abused by individuals, such need not be the case. Indeed, the biblical record frequently and clearly speaks of alcoholic beverages as good gifts from God for man’s enjoyment. Unfortunately, as is always the case among sinners, good things are often transformed into curses. This is true not only with alcohol but with food, medicine, sex, wealth, authority, and many other areas of life. In fact, gluttonous eating of food is paralleled with immoderate drinking of wine in Scripture (Deut 21:20; Prov 23:20–21; Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34), just as is the perverted use of sex (Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21; 1 Pet 4:3).

The reader should not conclude that I intend for this study to encourage drinking by those who do not presently do so. I do not. I have never and will never encourage others to drink. Whether or not an individual wants to drink is a matter of his own tastes and discretion (within biblical limits, of course).

Neither should the reader think that this study presents all that can be said on the biblical understanding of the question of alcohol use. Again, such is not the case. Space constraints prohibit an in-depth analysis of all the data of Scripture. Nevertheless, I believe that the issues presented herein capture the essence of the biblical position.

The only point I make herein is that the biblical evidence shows that God allows alcohol consumption in moderation. Too often the Bible takes the back seat to emotional, anecdotal, and social arguments against alcohol consumption. This is most unfortunate — especially when considering the matter in ecclesiastical circles for Christians must “let God be found true” (Rom 3:4).

Link between alcohol use and cancer

There is a report in The Independent (UK) newspaper, 8 April 2011, about the link between alcohol use and cancer, “Report reveals alcohol cancer link”. Part of the report reads:

One in 10 cancers in men and one in 33 in women across Western Europe are caused by drinking, according to new research.

While even small amounts increases the risk, drinking above recommended limits causes the majority of cancer cases linked to alcohol, experts said.

And even former drinkers who have now quit are still at risk of cancer, including of the oesophagus, breast, mouth and bowel.

NHS guidelines are that men should drink no more than three to four units a day while women should not go over two to three units a day.

But the new research, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found cancer risks at even lower levels.

Experts analysed data from eight European countries, including the UK, and worked out what proportion of men and women were drinking above guidelines of 24g of alcohol a day for men and 12g a day for women.

In the UK, one unit is defined as 8g of alcohol, meaning 12g is roughly a small 125ml glass of white wine (1.6 units).

In the British Medical Journal, 7 April 2011, “Alcohol attributable burden of incidence of cancer in eight European countries based on results from prospective cohort study “, these were the results and conclusions of this research:

Results If we assume causality, among men and women, 10% (95% confidence interval 7 to 13%) and 3% (1 to 5%) of the incidence of total cancer was attributable to former and current alcohol consumption in the selected European countries. For selected cancers the figures were 44% (31 to 56%) and 25% (5 to 46%) for upper aerodigestive tract, 33% (11 to 54%) and 18% (?3 to 38%) for liver, 17% (10 to 25%) and 4% (?1 to 10%) for colorectal cancer for men and women, respectively, and 5.0% (2 to 8%) for female breast cancer. A substantial part of the alcohol attributable fraction in 2008 was associated with alcohol consumption higher than the recommended upper limit: 33?037 of 178?578 alcohol related cancer cases in men and 17?470 of 397?043 alcohol related cases in women.

Conclusions In western Europe, an important proportion of cases of cancer can be attributable to alcohol consumption, especially consumption higher than the recommended upper limits. These data support current political efforts to reduce or to abstain from alcohol consumption to reduce the incidence of cancer.

An Australian study from 2009, according to ABC News [Australia], “Study bolsters alcohol-cancer link”, stated that:

The National Drug Research Institute has found more than 2,000 Australians die from alcohol-related cancers each year.

The study, conducted by researchers at Curtin University, found 1,200 men and 900 women in Australia died from alcohol-related cancer in the past year, with 200 deaths in WA.

The institute found links between alcohol consumption and cancer to be extensive, and says the numbers could increase as links to other cancers are discovered.

Currently links between alcohol and mouth, throat, oesophagus, liver, breast, colon, rectal and prostate cancers have been established.

Researchers also found a woman who consumes five standard drinks a day is five times more likely to be diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer than a non-drinker.

Tanya Chikritzhs from the National Drug Research Institute says the links between alcohol and cancer are extensive.

“Basically the more you drink, the more you’re at risk,” she said.

“Heavy drinkers, when it comes to let’s say rectal cancer for instance, are many times more likely to be at risk of cancer than a person who is a very light drinker.”

Professor Chikritzhs says she was surprised by the research relating to colon and rectal cancer, as the risk of death for women who drink moderately was considerably greater than men.

“For a man who drinks 2.5 standard drinks a day, the risk is about 10 per cent greater than someone who doesn’t drink. For a woman, it’s over 200 per cent greater,” she said.

The Sydney Morning Herald of 2 May 2011, in the article, “Quit drinking to cut cancer rate”, stated:

CANCER COUNCIL AUSTRALIA has revised dramatically upwards its estimate of alcohol’s contribution to new cancer cases and issued its strongest warning yet that people worried by the link should avoid drinking altogether.

New evidence implicating alcohol in the development of bowel and breast cancer meant drinking probably caused about 5.6 per cent of cancers in Australia, or nearly 6500 of the 115,000 cases expected this year, a review by the council found. This was nearly double the 3.1 per cent figure it nominated in its last assessment, in 2008.

The council’s chief executive, Ian Olver, said the updated calculations revealed breast and bowel cancer accounted for nearly two-thirds of all alcohol-related cancers, overtaking those of the mouth, throat and oesophagus.

”The public really needs to know about it because it’s a modifiable risk factor,” said Professor Olver, calling for awareness campaigns to alert people to the link. ”You might not be able to help your genes but you can make lifestyle choices.”

Professor Olver said public advice should not conflict with the National Health & Medical Research Council’s 2009 recommendation people should drink no more than two standard alcohol units daily, already half the previous safe threshold for men….

”I’m not talking about tobacco-style warnings but at the moment there’s no requirement for any health advice on alcohol packaging, and that’s wrong,” said Professor Daube, from Curtin University.

So what will now be done by governments that have this research? Remember what happened when research found the link between cigarette smoking and cancer? Will the same happen with this research link between alcohol use and cancer? I’m not holding my breath!!!

The above presents some of the evidence on which you can make a decision with your God-given discernment and conscience. For my wife and me, we have chosen to avoid the consumption of alcohol. You can read some of our reasons in: “Alcohol and the Christian“.

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 9 October 2015.

The drug menace! What can parents do?

Image result for syringe drug use public domain

(public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Note: the statistics in this article need to be updated, but they should provide an example of the use of illicit drugs in Australia.

Matthew is above-average as a student, not bad looking, liked by his mates, faithfully attends church, comes from a middle-class family. By the time he reaches age 18, what are his chances of experimenting with alcohol or an illicit drug (including marijuana)?

Marijuana is the most common illicit drug in Australia;

One in three people aged 14 and over has tried marijuana;[2]

One survey found that 15% of all Australians used illicit drugs at least once in the previous 12 months;

26% of all teenagers (aged 14-19) used illicit drugs at least once in the previous 12 months;

98% of street kids (under age 19) used illicit drugs at least once in the previous 12 months.[3]

27% of 15-year-old girls smoke nicotine and 21% of 15-year-old boys smoke nicotine (1990 data)[4]

From 1985-1993, the proportion of South Australian 14-19 year olds who said they had ever used marijuana increased 50%. This was after decriminalisation (on-the- spot fines) in SA in 1987. This compared with increases of 4% (Qld), 31% (WA), 39% (Vic), and a decrease of 7% (NSW).[5]

What is happening for the older age groups is of great concern:

50% of people aged 20-29 have used marijuana;[6]

60% of males and 45% of females aged 25-39 have used marijuana.[7]

Variation of % of 20-39 year olds who ever used marijuana, 1985-1993: increase 6% (Vic), 11% (WA), 15% (NSW), 32% (SA) [after decriminalisation (on the spot fines) in SA in 1987], and a decrease of 2% (Qld).[8]

In 1989, as far as “absolute alcohol consumption is concerned, [Australia ranks] 15th in the world and our level of consumption is the highest of all English-speaking nations.

“Alcohol abuse has now become the major drug problem in Australia, with alcohol-related road deaths, hospital admissions and drownings bearing witness to the enormity of the problem.

“Family breakdowns, domestic violence, homicides and money worries go hand-in-hand with excessive drinking, as do depression, sexual impotence, permanent brain damage and poor dietary habits.”[9]

“Drug misuse [is] estimated to cost Australia more than $14 billion a year in road trauma, health care, lost productivity, and law enforcement.”[10] The breakdown is:

Alcohol = $6.027 billion

Tobacco = $6.842 billion

Street Drugs = $1.441 billion.[11]

These people come from every walk of life: rich and poor, liberal and conservative, religious and non-religious, rural, suburban, and inner city.

The legal drugs are devastating our community. Why then the push to make illict drugs (such as marijuana and heroin) more readily available? I think this is crazy thinking.

It’s time to conclude that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and do something about this plague on the nation.

How to Motivate Others to Get Involved.

In one city,[12] a group of parents joined together to try to curb drug abuse and provide a treatment program for their youth. They called themselves “Parents Against Drugs“. They approached government with this idea that when children are caught with drugs or alcohol at school, the student will be placed in a school where everyone enrolled has the same problem with drug and alcohol abuse.

The students would provide support for each other to stay drug-free. They would have access to treatment alternatives.

Even if these parents do not succeed, they have at least raised the awareness of the need in that city and have the ear of government officials.

In another city, on New Year’s Eve when there are a lot of drink-driving deaths, businesses, parents, P&C’s, and other groups, are pulling together to provide free rides home to those who become drunk.

In Philadelphia (USA), parents became angry at the number of crack (a form of cocaine) dealers who had moved into their area. They formed a group:

to become the best-informed parents in the country about drugs;

police trained the parents to observe behaviour to identify drug pushing and dealing;

that learned how to spot the problem and they took action by calling the police with a complaint about a drug dealer in the street;

that cleaned up suburbs that were infested with crack and its dealers.

which had a practical impact on its community.

If you are frustrated with a lack of action in your community to deal with drugs, stop expecting others to solve the problem. It’s time for parents to stop pointing fingers and start looking for ways that everyone in the community can stop drug abuse. It can start with you.

How can it happen?

PARENT POWER

For parents to pull together to save our children, it must start with someone. One concerned parent can begin something that will make a radical difference for drug-free children.

The most important contributors are parents.

We need a grass-roots effort to change the direction of the drug problem.

Parents can take other steps:

  • insure that existing laws against drug abuse are strictly enforced;
  • make a public fuss if you believe magistrates are not doing the correct thing in sentencing;
  • do something at the level of the education department to make sure our youth are getting accurate information about drugs. Perhaps starting at the P&C meeting. Maybe parents can form prevention groups to go into schools.
  • parents should work to keep drug abuse a criminal offence. Decriminalisation sends a dangerous message to our youth.

Parents could join together to:

  • make sure there is no alcohol or drugs at school functions or parties their children go to;
  • close down functions for children and under-age youth where there is alcohol or drugs;
  • make sure the names of those who supply alcohol and drugs to the under-aged are given to the police and are prosecuted.

However, we must make sure parents know the dangers of alcohol and other drugs so they understand the reason for the firm stand.

You don’t have to be a psychologist or a counsellor to run a support group for parents or youth. Advertise it and when the first person comes, you have the start of a support group to begin the movement to drug-proof your children. However, plan your approach carefully. There is no excuse for a shoddy program.

PEER POWER

Before motivating parents to join together, you could start with youth coming together. Often when youth join together to attack the drug problem, it is easier to get their parents involved.

When youth form a group against drugs and alcohol, it should be based on a pledge that all members of the group are accountable to each other and their parents to remain drug and alcohol free. Often youth join a gang of drug-users because of a lack of alternatives. Why don’t youth join a group that could be called A.A.D.D.–Adolescents Against Drunk Driving? Wouldn’t it be amazing to see such a positive peer group in our schools?

A New York State (USA) survey of 8,000 high school students found how the peer group influenced drug use. The results were:[13]

Close Friends Who Used Drugs Personal Use of Drugs
None 2%
Few 17%
Some 50%
Most 80%
All 90%

The study found that the “number of weekly visits with drug-oriented friends had an impact on drug use.” The message is clear: Our children become like the mates they hang around with.

THE PRO-ACTIVE CHURCH

The war on drugs will be won when the community comes together to help. Churches need to be part of the pro-active movement to deal with drugs. It is not to be left just to church youth workers, Sunday School teachers and pastors–it is the job of the whole church.

  • train the staff;
  • choose leaders for the church’s pro-active stance against drugs;
  • there needs to be teachers in the church for drug education, prevention and treatment;
  • make courses available for parents. They need to know the facts about drugs and prevention strategies;
  • after the parents get knowledge, it’s time to educate the children:
  • children don’t learn best by lectures. Bring in a redeemed drug addict to tell his/her story. Show films giving graphic details about the realities of drug abuse; use drama.
  • educate the children of the church with exposure to accurate drug information.

You could organise parents to provide healthy activities for youth when temptations are there. After sporting events or other social events for youth, why not organise pizza parties at your place?

Join with other churches in presenting a united voice against the drug problems in your city or suburb. The church can set a standard of leadership for the whole community. We desperately need a community-wide drug education and prevention push that challenges the government’s “harm minimisation” line. I believe it is ludicrous trying to teach our youth how to use harmful drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and other illicit drugs to minimise harm. I find this a message of madness.

ONE CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE

Anybody can start the drug prevention movement in your city. There’s no reason why it can’t be you, if you are convinced about the danger of drugs and you want to be part of the solution.

The year 1975 was a bad one for the U.S. State of Alaska. Marijuana use in the privacy of the home was made legal. Drug use and abuse escalated. Lynda Adams was deeply concerned. She formed a local parent group that eventually became a state-wide organisation, Alaskans for Drug-Free Youth. A 1990 public referendum in Alaska made marijuana use a criminal offence again. She says, “I encourage people not to give up because dedication and perseverance can make a difference.”

You can mobilise the media, the schools, police, and parents to stop the drug problem in your area. The drug war can’t be won alone. The hearts and minds of this generation of young people are at stake.

ONE PERSON WITH COMPASSION, COMMITMENT AND LOVE FOR OTHERS, CAN MOTIVATE A CITY TO BEGIN THE FIGHT.

Molly Frye was a mother of three teenagers:

“A few years ago, she got fed up with what her kids were being taught about sex and drug abuse in the school system, and she decided to do something about it.

“Without a day’s experience in formal youth work, Molly wrote a curriculum about crisis pregnancy and drug and alcohol abuse. As a guest instructor, she presented her curriculum in a health class. It was so well received that [in one] year she and a modest band of volunteers spoke to more than 16,000 students in [her] community. One person can make a difference.[14]

The Family and Drug Abuse

One of the best predictors of a youth’s drinking habits is the attitude of the parents towards alcohol. “Children of alcoholics have a four-times-greater risk of developing alcoholism than children of non-alcoholics.”

Children are more likely to “abuse drugs if their parents:

  • smoke cigarettes;
  • abuse alcohol or are alcoholics;
  • take illicit drugs;
  • use any substance to help master stress;
  • impart an ambivalent or positive attitude toward illegal drugs.”[15]
  • What happens when children see:
  • Daddy has a so-called harmless few beers or glass of wine after work?
  • Mum feeling lousy and running to the medicine cabinet for a valium?

Then there’s the denial or lack of knowledge by parents of what their children are up to. One U.S. study of 600 grade 12 students and their parents about alcohol use found that “only 35 percent of the adults believed their sons and daughters had consumed beer, wine or liquor within the last month. But according to the kids, the actual figure was nearly double that.”[16]

Notes:

[1] Prepared by Spencer Gear when he was a family counsellor in Hervey Bay, Qld., Australia. He has since retired from that role.

[2]Recent statistics reveal that “marijuana is the most wide-spread drug in use following tobacco and alcohol, with 31 per cent of Australians having tried it and 13 per cent using it in the year before the survey.” This National Drug Strategy household survey involving 3,850 people over a two month period, was conducted by AGB-McNair and was released by the federal Health Minister, Michael Wooldridge (in the Bundaberg News-Mail, July 6, 1996, p. 10.)

[3]Statistics on marijuana and other illicit drugs, based on NCADA National Household Survey 1991.

[4]NSW Cancer Council Study, 1990 data.

[5]Queensland Criminal Justice Commission Report 1994 (CJC). Source: NCADA 1985-93, in Elaine Walters, The Cruel Hoax: Street Drugs in Australia. Shield Pty. Ltd., [PO Box 230, Malvern, Vic. 3144, Phone: 018 036 898], 1996, 35.

[6]The Parliamentary Joint Committee on National Crime Authority, 1989, Table 2, p. 38.

[7]Statistics on drug abuse in Australia, 1992, p. 33.

[8]Queensland Criminal Justice Commission Report 1994 (CJC). Source: NCADA 1985-93, in Elaine Walters, The Cruel Hoax: Street Drugs in Australia. Shield Pty. Ltd., [PO Box 230, Malvern, Vic. 3144, Phone: 018 036 898], 1996, 35.

[9]“A devil too many of us know well,” The Canberra Times, March 3, 1992, p. 21.

[10]“Legal drug abuse more costly than illegal use,” The Canberra Times, April 7, 1993, p. 19.

[11]National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, March 1991.

[12]Albuquerque, New Mexico (USA), in Stephen Arterburn & Jim Burns, Drug-Proof Your Kids. Pomona, California: Focus on the Family Publishing, 1989., p. 162.

[13]What Works: Schools Without Drugs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1987, p. 15, in Arterburn & Burns, p. 27.

[14]In Arterburn & Burns, p. 172.

[15]Donald W. Goodwin, M.D., Is Alcoholism Hereditary? New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1988, p. 3, in Arterburn & Burns, pp. 27-28.

[16]Ken Barun and Philip Bashe, How to Keep the Children You Love Off Drugs. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1988, p. 4, in Arterburn & Burns, p. 28.

Copyright © 2009 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 28 January 2018