THE WAR ON DRUGS IS BEING WON

It didn't take long for the usual suspects to blame police for the
death of a 17-year-old girl from a drug overdose at the Big Day Out in
Perth last weekend.

Friends of Gemma Thoms have claimed she swallowed three ecstasy
tablets to avoid police sniffer dogs, and the Greens MLC Sylvia Hale
told reporters police should not be "prompting [young people] into
activities that you know are going to be dangerous and pose a real
risk to their health".

Tony Trimingham, who founded the lobby group Family Drug Support after
his son died from a heroin overdose, said: "Probably, if the sniffer
dogs hadn't been there that girl wouldn't have died."

Police reacted angrily, saying they seized 145 amphetamine tablets at
the concert, which may have prevented other overdoses.

The tragedy has brought out the logical inconsistencies of some of
Australia's most celebrated harm minimisers. Trimingham, for instance,
on ABC radio this week to promote his new book, Not My Family, Never
My Child, declared he didn't believe in the Federal Government's
12-year-old "Tough on Drugs" strategy, which has successfully slashed
drug use among young people. Yet he admitted the prevention, education
and treatment elements integral to the strategy had been successful.

Promoting his own new book, Paul Dillon, who runs a private drugs
education company, said Thoms's death, "brings into question the whole
idea of sniffer dogs . I believe we're in the most conservative period
that we have seen in my working life. We didn't have sniffer dogs and
roadside testing five years ago."

And yet, moments later he declared: "Our illicit drug use is
plummeting. Cannabis use has halved ."

Surely this is evidence the Tough on Drugs strategy has turned around
decades of rising drug use. The Australian Secondary School Students'
Use of Alcohol and Drug Survey shows a significant decline in the use
of all illicit drugs, from 18 per cent in 1996 to 8 per cent in 2005,
with cannabis the biggest loser, reflecting increased public awareness
of its potential for triggering mental illness.

To his credit, Dillon makes this point in Teenagers, Alcohol And
Drugs, which contains useful strategies for parents. He appears to
have mellowed over the years, perhaps tailoring his message to what
parents have come to expect, in light of research showing the ill
effects of drugs on teenagers' developing brains.

Contrary to popular belief, "most young people have never tried
illegal drugs," he writes. "They have no interest in these substances
and they never will." If they experiment, most will do so in their
20s.

Dillon does not believe more young people are drinking to excess,
"although it is quite clear that heavy-drinking teenagers are
consuming at much riskier levels and at a younger age".

By maintaining a positive relationship with their adolescents - by
saying no and setting boundaries, not by being a best friend - parents
can have "a greater influence than their kids' peer groups in many
cases".

And he urges parents to warn their children about the legal
consequences of using drugs. "New policing strategies . have resulted
in more young people . being prosecuted for drug offences. Let your
child know how being caught using drugs will affect the rest of their
life." In other words, tough policing is a deterrent.

Dillon describes the "incredible change in attitude" towards cannabis
he has observed in 25 years working in drug education. No longer is it
regarded as "cool" but as a "loser's drug".

Ecstasy is the one drug whose use has not been declining, being
"perceived by many young people as a fairly benign drug". Deaths from
ecstasy are rare, he says, but they do occur, as we saw last weekend.
Like any drug, ecstasy can attack weakness in the user, prompting
fits, strokes and heart attacks in seemingly healthy people. Ketamine
and LSD have also been found in some ecstasy tablets. Methamphetamine
use, too, is declining, but "for most parents, the 'ice epidemic' is a
non-issue".

Alcohol is the substance most likely to trouble parents of teens,
simply because it is more commonplace.

New guidelines to be issued later this month by the Australian
National Health and Medical Research Council state there is no safe
alcohol consumption if you are under 18, and it is particularly
dangerous if you are under 15.

This will pose new challenges for parents of teenagers comfortable
with previous guidelines, which allowed those over 15 to have a drink
under parental supervision.

Dillon's advice is to delay the initiation of alcohol as long as
possible. The research is contradictory, "but we know more about
alcohol and the developing brain and children under 16 should avoid
it".

It is not true that getting drunk occasionally is "just a phase teens
go through", and sending that message can be dangerous, he says.

In Dillon's experience, teenagers sometimes need excuses not to drink
or take drugs, to "dodge peer pressure".

Among the best: I am allergic to alcohol; I'd love to smoke cannabis
but I have an uncle with mental health problems; Dad found out I was
drinking last weekend and I'll be grounded if I get caught again.

He suggests parents help their children develop these
strategies.

Parents spend the teenage years holding their breath in the hope the
spade work they have put in will protect their children when parental
influence wanes, and peers and society take over.

The good news is that they have more influence than they may think,
especially if the message from those in authority remains strong.
Teenagers do not have to become drug abusers and binge drinkers, and
most are not.

And last week, I inadvertently said Fiona Stanley was a plastic
surgeon. She is an epidemiologist.