- STAFF PICKS
- GIFTS + GIFT CARDS
- SELL BOOKS
- FIND A STORE
New Trade Paper
Currently out of stock.
available for shipping or prepaid pickup only
This title in other editions
Licit and Illicit Drug Use in the Netherlands, 2001by Manja D. Abraham
Synopses & Reviews
In the context of international research and policy, the study of drug use in the Netherlands is of global interest. The Centre for Drug Research (CEDRO) at the University of Amsterdam conducted the first large national drug use survey of the population of the Netherlands in 1997. The survey was repeated in 2001, and the results are presented in this volume.
In 2001, 18,000 people age 12 years and over were asked about their use of a wide range of drugs, both licit and illicit. Drugs surveyed were tobacco, alcohol, hypnotics, sedatives, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, mushrooms, and opiates such as heroin, inhalants, and performance enhancing drugs. People were asked about past and recent use, their age of first use, frequency of use, and their place of acquisition.
This pioneering volume presents data for the Netherlands as a whole, but also separately for Amsterdam and Rotterdam and for designated dense population centers. It also includes use figures for a large number of age groups. This volume reports both 2001 and 1997 data, thus giving an overview of recent trends in drug use in the Netherlands.
Respondents were offered a choice in how they wanted the data reported, and this highly innovative approach to survey methodology gets ample attention here. Like the survey in 1997, the 2001 survey was designed in cooperation with Statistics Netherlands and funded by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports in the Netherlands.
The report is split in two parts in order to facilitate its use. Part I focuses on the survey itself: the methodology, response, representativity, non-response and mode analysis. Part II presents the outcomes of the survey: the druguse figures. Licit and Illicit Drug Use in the Netherlands, 2001 is essestial reading for both policy makers and social workers alike.
What Our Readers Are Saying