problems, those of drug use and abuse among them. In the 1980’s, a major change already discernible will be a decrease in the size of the youth population. Because young adults 18 to 25 years old are the group at greatest risk for drug abuse, this decrease is likely to have a strong impact on future
May 14, 2021 · Question 17 2 out of 2 points Which group displayed a significant decline in drug use in the late 1980s? Selected Answer : Middle - class Americans Selected Answer: Middle-class Americans
denced by a steady and continuing decline in drug use, had been achieved before the war began. By all available measures of drug use in the general population, use of the major illicit substances, except cocaine, began to decline in the early 1980s, and the use of cocaine declined from the mid-1980s onward. 7
Hispanic groups in particular display very different patterns depending on their specific originating culture; for example, Cubans in the United States have generally lower drug use rates than Mexican or other Latin Americans (Austin and Gilbert, 1989; Bachman et al., 1991; Wallace and Bachman, 1991; Barnes and Welte, 1987; Newcomb et al., 1987; Oetting and Beauvis, 1990).
in 1975, followed by a rise to 12 percent in 1979; reported levels. of use fluctuated around 12 percent, reaching a 13 percent peak. in 1985 after which there was a precipitate drop to 3.5 percent in.
Washington v Davis,2' an intent to discriminate must be shown. in order to establish a civil rights claim under the Constitution. Because courts will not look behind the ostensible crime- and. drug-use reduction goals claimed for anti-crime and anti-drug.
cocaine declined from the mid-1980s onward.7. By some disingenuous measures, the War on Drugs was.
The use of one or more classes of drugs between adolescence and young adulthood has been found to interfere with normal development by compromising physical and psychological health, the performance of traditional work and family roles, and the level of education achieved in young adulthood (Kandel et al., 1986).
Current marijuana use was 16 percent in 1989 compared with 34 percent in 1980, and current cocaine use was down to 2.8 percent from 7 percent. Similar declines were reflected in the household surveys. Consumption of illicit drugs is most prevalent among young adults ages 18-25 and older.
The social environment educes conformity to group norms and reactions to economic circumstances. When group norms and economic circumstances contribute to promoting drug use, individuals in that environment are more susceptible to exposure to and use of drugs.
The most well-known consequences include acute health crises such as overdose death or traumatic injuries while intoxicated (Simons-Morton et al., 1989); chronic or cumulative damages such as tissue deterioration, scarring, and oncogenesis (in smokers' throats and lungs, smokeless tobacco users' oral membranes, drinkers' livers, sniffers' nasal membranes, intravenous injectors' veins); a variety of endocrine, neurological, and central nervous system degradation, some reversible and some irreversible (see Spencer and Boren, 1990); AIDS (Feucht et al., 1990; Chitwood et al., 1990); criminality (Faupel, 1988; Dembo et al., 1991); and developmental disability (Block et al., 1990; Nathan, 1990). Because the population has many more users than abusers or those who are dependent, there are large numbers of people who are individually at some small degree of risk for impairment, and small numbers of people are at high risk of consequences. No quantitative analysis at this time indicates how these total group risks compare in size with each other. But if we work by analogy from the analyses of population risks for cancer and cardiovascular disease, we may assume that the severity of risks are distributed log-normally—which means that each level of risk is multiplied by some factor of the former, not merely added to it. This argues for approaches to prevention that seek to reduce risk factors in both the high-risk minority and the middle majority of the distribution curve (see the appendix).
The clinical and environmental models are closely related. The clinical model focuses on a subgroup of all drug users, those whose drug consumption is more advanced, deeply compulsive, poorly responsive to social or environmental changes, and (at least temporarily) very difficult for the individual to control.
Regardless of the priority that the public, political leaders, and the media attach to drug problems at particular points in time, drugs are unquestionably a significant social problem for the United States in the 1990s. Their significance is compounded by the fact that drug problems do not stand alone.
The evidence from the high school senior surveys is that, for both marijuana and cocaine, as the perceived risk of harm and perceived normative impropriety of these drugs increased , consumption rates decreased. At the same time there was no decline in the perceived availability of either drug. Dramatic, highly publicized incidents in the case of cocaine might well account for the rapidity of the shift in health beliefs and social norms about cocaine. There were no such dramatic events in the case of marijuana, but beliefs about that drug shifted anyway, more gradually but quite decisively, presumably as a consequence of an accretion of factors.
Examination of trends for these crimes shows that: The increase in violence in the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s was due primarily to an increase in violent acts committed by people under age 20.
Several other interrelated factors also fueled the rise in youth violence, including the rise of illegal drug markets, particularly for crack cocaine, the recruitment of youth into those markets, and an increase in gun carrying among young people.
Young people are overrepresented as both victims and perpetrators of violence. Indeed, some commentators have suggested that recent cohorts of youth have been composed of "superpredators" who have little regard for human life. The evidence, however, suggests that other factors are responsible for recent increases in youth gun violence.
Given that the purpose of the DRGs is to relate a hospital’s case mix to its resource intensity, it was necessary to develop an operational means of determining the types of patients treated and relating each patient type to the resources they consumed. While all patients are unique, groups of patients have demographic, diagnostic and therapeutic attributes in common that determine their level of resource intensity. By developing clinically similar groups of patients with similar resource intensity, patients can be aggregated into meaningful patient classes. Moreover, if these patient classes covered the entire range of patients seen in an inpatient setting, then collectively they would constitute a patient classification scheme that would provide a means of establishing and measuring hospital case mix complexity. The DRGs were therefore developed as a patient classification scheme consisting of classes of patients who were similar clinically and in terms of their consumption of hospital resources.
The term case mix complexity has been used to refer to an interrelated but distinct set of patient attributes which include severity of illness, prognosis, treatment difficulty, need for intervention and resource intensity. Each of these concepts has very precise meaning which describes a particular aspect of a hospital’s case mix.