{"title":"禁毒战争对药物使用研究造成了不应有的偏见。","authors":"Bryant M Stone","doi":"10.1177/00332941221146701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>After working in the substance use field for several years and conducting research on substance use, it has come to my attention how deeply ingrained the War on Drugs propaganda is in substance use research. The lines of research demonstrating the potential benefits of substance use (including illicit substances), delineation of harm from stigma, and the societal impact of the War on Drugs is rather weak and lacking, despite numerous recent studies showing the benefits of certain substances and reports of individuals in therapy and online suggesing that illicit substances help them in some respects. There are numerous critical implications of this bias in substance use research. Suppose the field primarily produces studies that show that all substances are harmful in almost any circumstance and that substance use disorders (SUDs) are primarily driven by psychological deficits (e.g., willpower). In that case, we, as researchers, would be feeding into the War on Drugs, which is known for marginalizing individuals, promoting organized crime, exacerbating SUDs, feeding into a police and prison state, and killing individuals due to tainted substances. Substance use researchers and clinicians are among the first to recognize that the War on Drugs has failed. Yet, despite this belief, we seem to have not quite fully noticed how the propaganda has influenced how we conduct our jobs and the research we produce. In the current letter, I inform researchers who study substance use and clinicians who treat SUDs to acknowledge their own learned biases against substances and those who use substances; to be more cautious when interpreting substance use data in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The War on Drugs has Unduly Biased Substance Use Research.\",\"authors\":\"Bryant M Stone\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941221146701\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>After working in the substance use field for several years and conducting research on substance use, it has come to my attention how deeply ingrained the War on Drugs propaganda is in substance use research. The lines of research demonstrating the potential benefits of substance use (including illicit substances), delineation of harm from stigma, and the societal impact of the War on Drugs is rather weak and lacking, despite numerous recent studies showing the benefits of certain substances and reports of individuals in therapy and online suggesing that illicit substances help them in some respects. There are numerous critical implications of this bias in substance use research. Suppose the field primarily produces studies that show that all substances are harmful in almost any circumstance and that substance use disorders (SUDs) are primarily driven by psychological deficits (e.g., willpower). In that case, we, as researchers, would be feeding into the War on Drugs, which is known for marginalizing individuals, promoting organized crime, exacerbating SUDs, feeding into a police and prison state, and killing individuals due to tainted substances. Substance use researchers and clinicians are among the first to recognize that the War on Drugs has failed. Yet, despite this belief, we seem to have not quite fully noticed how the propaganda has influenced how we conduct our jobs and the research we produce. In the current letter, I inform researchers who study substance use and clinicians who treat SUDs to acknowledge their own learned biases against substances and those who use substances; to be more cautious when interpreting substance use data in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221146701\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221146701","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在药物使用领域工作数年并开展药物使用研究后,我注意到毒品战争的宣传在药物使用研究中是多么根深蒂固。尽管最近有大量研究表明某些物质对人体有益,而且有个人在治疗和网上报告中表示非法药物在某些方面对他们有帮助,但证明药物使用(包括非法药物)的潜在益处、从污名化中划分危害以及反毒品战争的社会影响的研究却相当薄弱和缺乏。药物使用研究中的这种偏见有许多重要影响。假设该领域的主要研究表明,几乎在任何情况下,所有物质都是有害的,而且物质使用障碍(SUD)主要是由心理缺陷(如意志力)引起的。在这种情况下,作为研究人员,我们将助长 "禁毒战争",而 "禁毒战争 "以边缘化个人、助长有组织犯罪、加剧 SUDs、助长警察和监狱国家,以及因有毒物质导致个人死亡而闻名。药物使用研究人员和临床医生是最早认识到禁毒战争已经失败的人之一。然而,尽管有这样的信念,我们似乎还没有完全注意到这种宣传是如何影响我们的工作方式和研究成果的。在这封信中,我告诉研究药物使用的研究人员和治疗 SUD 的临床医生,要承认自己对药物和药物使用者的偏见;今后在解释药物使用数据时要更加谨慎。
The War on Drugs has Unduly Biased Substance Use Research.
After working in the substance use field for several years and conducting research on substance use, it has come to my attention how deeply ingrained the War on Drugs propaganda is in substance use research. The lines of research demonstrating the potential benefits of substance use (including illicit substances), delineation of harm from stigma, and the societal impact of the War on Drugs is rather weak and lacking, despite numerous recent studies showing the benefits of certain substances and reports of individuals in therapy and online suggesing that illicit substances help them in some respects. There are numerous critical implications of this bias in substance use research. Suppose the field primarily produces studies that show that all substances are harmful in almost any circumstance and that substance use disorders (SUDs) are primarily driven by psychological deficits (e.g., willpower). In that case, we, as researchers, would be feeding into the War on Drugs, which is known for marginalizing individuals, promoting organized crime, exacerbating SUDs, feeding into a police and prison state, and killing individuals due to tainted substances. Substance use researchers and clinicians are among the first to recognize that the War on Drugs has failed. Yet, despite this belief, we seem to have not quite fully noticed how the propaganda has influenced how we conduct our jobs and the research we produce. In the current letter, I inform researchers who study substance use and clinicians who treat SUDs to acknowledge their own learned biases against substances and those who use substances; to be more cautious when interpreting substance use data in the future.