Connect with us

Gay Drug Use Study: Lesbian And Gay Foundation Responds To Our Criticism

Published

on

Yesterday, The New Civil Rights Movement published our report and initial analysis of a UK study on rates of drug abuse among the UK LGBT population. The study, “Part of the Picture: Lesbian, gay and bisexual people’s alcohol and drug use in England (2009-2011),” was actually funded by an LGBT charity, The Lesbian & Gay Foundation, and was presented in the British and U.S. media as finding that gay people are seven times more likely to use illegal drugs.

The New Civil Rights Movement continues to strongly oppose the media’s characterization of the study, and continues to characterize the study’s methodology as flawed, as we reported yesterday:

One of several problems with the study seems obvious: those who took the survey were attendees at gay pride parades — hardly a representative sample of LGBT people. Other issues include age samples, the group the study used as a base, and that the study is one that uses self-reporting for its results. is the study flawed? Most likely yes, but there may still be important takeaways. Can we call it good science? Sociologists will need to weigh in, but given the easily-spotted flaws, it seems doubtful.

We concluded:

There is little question that LGBT people are subject to more harassment and hate than any other segment of the population, and it’s not surprising to learn that members of socially and politically oppressed populations would look for relief, possibly in illegal substances, especially when LGBT social life historically revolved around bars, although that has changed for many as advances in equality make their way into cultures.

Time will tell how vlid this particular study is. Studies like these, if they are valid, are important because they expose the hidden needs of minority populations, but it is irresponsible for studies like these to be released without context and explanation, allowing those on the Right to use them as “evidence” of poor moral character, especially when those on the Right created the very scenarios that strongly contribute to this behavior.

In researching the study for yesterday’s article, we contacted the Lesbian & Gay Foundation, and received the following response, from both the Lesbian & Gay Foundation and the University of Central Lancashire, who jointly conducted the study. We offered to publish their response, which you can read, in full and unedited, below, followed by our comments:

 

Thank you for taking the time to read and report on our study in to drug and alcohol use amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people in England. The report is certainly generating a good deal debate about these issues, something we feel is long overdue and we have now had the opportunity to read a range of responses to the report. We welcome your contribution to the debate but would like to take the opportunity to point out a number of inaccuracies in your article

You criticise the findings on the basis that ‘those who took the survey were attendees at gay pride events’. This is a partial presentation of the facts based on a misreading of the report.  While most (81%) of the respondents were surveyed in this way, the remainder responded to the survey either by post or on-line questionnaire.  This is important, because your article misses the steps we have taken to test the effect that this may have had on the results. In 2012 we conducted a separate analysis of the POTP data on drug use by recruitment method (Pride events, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire). This analysis suggests that the high rate of reported last month drug taking amongst the sample as a whole cannot be explained simply by the large number of respondents recruited via Pride events. Despite demographic differences between the sample sub-sets (e.g. that postal respondent were older), respondents recruited at Pride events were no more likely to have taken any drug in the last month than any other group of respondents and for some substances they were the least likely. These data are reported on page 19 of the main report. From this we conclude that the high rate of reported last month drug taking amongst the sample as a whole could not be explained by the large numbers of people who were surveyed at Pride events.

You also criticise the study on basis of the age profile of the respondents, who you rightly point out are younger in our sample than in the population as a whole.  You use one of our tables to support your point about this. In the  report we emphasise clearly that  caution should be taken in relation to the comparisons between our findings on last month drug use and the figures reported for the general population by other studies, most notably the British Crime Survey.  We state very clearly that ‘making comparisons between the drug use reported by the POTP respondents and that reported by the general population is not straightforward because the POTP sample is younger by comparison’.  For this reason we also compare drug use by younger LGB people aged 16-24 for that reported by the British Crime Survey for the same age group, and conclude that within this age group last month drug taking by LGB people is just over two and half times more prevalent.

We also take great care to highlight the limitations of our study. We point out that we used a range of convenience sampling methods; that our sample is younger than that of the population as a whole; that our sample is younger than of the population used in the British Crime Survey; that most respondents were recruited at Pride events; that we had a low proportion of Black and minority ethnic respondents; and that the sample cannot be said to be representative of the LGB population as a whole.  However, these sampling and methodological problems are not unique to our study.  They are common to most studies in to drug and alcohol use and other risk behaviours amongst LGB groups as well as to many studies with so called ‘hard to reach populations’.

For us, despite the acknowledged limitations of the sampling methods, the importance of the studies main findings remain intact. LGB people are more likely to report last month drug use than the general population.  Whether the figure is seven times more likely (using the whole sample comparison from our study with the whole sample British Crime Survey figures), two and a half times more likely (using the figures for young people aged 16-24 in our study and figures for the same age group in the British Crime Survey), or three times more likely (using the 2009/10 and 2010/11 extension to the British Crime Survey which compares drug use in the last year) the fact remains that these differences are stark.  It is also noteworthy that drug use within our sample did not appear to diminish significantly with age until respondents were well in to their 40’s which again is in contrast with available data for the population as a whole.

Our study is also the first to use validated measures of dependency from DSM IV and ICD 10 (something you did not address in your piece).This suggests that more than 20% of the sample reported three or more signs of dependence. This is evidence that people are engaged in patterns of drug and alcohol use which lead to problems.

The report’s main findings should be a wake-up call for people working with the LGB community and for policy makers commissioning services at a local and national level. These concerns, raised in the report, are supported and reflected in the comments of David Stuart and Katy Richardson whose views you rely upon for support in your own article. We look forward to continuing and informed debate and discussion on these issues.

* * *

One final thought: Sociologists and other social scientists often do great work and more studies need to be done to help examine the LGBT community, whose needs, due to anti-gay laws and practices, as well as homophobia, are currently different than the overall communities in which we live.

However, as the world learned with the flawed “studies” of people like Paul Cameron, a discredited social scientist whose “work,” decades later, is still the basis of anti-gay hate from organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, and now, the flawed “work” of Mark Regnerus, which as recently as today appeared in the anti-gay attack by New Jersey’s Archbishop John Myers, once a study that portrays the LGBT community in a negative or wanting light is published, despite flawed methodology or flawed conclusions, those studies will live for decades as tools of our opponents, which is why The New Civil Rights Movement was quick, and appropriately so, to criticize this study, despite the good intentions behind it.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Mouthpiece for the Kremlin’: Rubio Scorched for ‘Russia Day’ Congratulations

Published

1 hour ago

on

June 12, 2025

By

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being sharply criticized for his message to the Russian people, congratulating them on “Russia Day.” While it is common for the Department of State to issue such proclamations to various nations, they are typically issued with a purpose—to inform, and to advance American interests, including democracy. Secretary Rubio appears to have chosen a different approach than his predecessors, ignoring the war crimes Russia stands accused of committing.

“On behalf of the American people, I want to congratulate the Russian people on Russia Day,” Rubio’s short statement begins.

“The United States remains committed to supporting the Russian people as they continue to build on their aspirations for a brighter future. We also take this opportunity to reaffirm the United States’ desire for constructive engagement with the Russian Federation to bring about a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine. It is our hope that peace will foster more mutually beneficial relations between our countries.”

By contrast, for example, during the Biden era, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made very clear in his 2022 message to the people of the Russian Federation what their President and government were actually doing.

READ MORE: ‘The Generals Stay Silent’: Experts Alarmed as Trump Politicizes Army at Fort Bragg Rally

“Russian citizens, like people everywhere, deserve to live their lives free of repression and to be able to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms without fear of retribution,” Secretary Blinken wrote. “This includes being able to voice their opinions and peacefully participate in civil and political activities in their own country.”

Blinken accused the Kremlin of having “intensified its crackdown against civil society and independent media,” while lamenting that “many Russian citizens are behind bars for the ‘crime’ of speaking truth to power,” which he described as “internal repression.”

He also told them that the “Kremlin is waging an unprovoked and unjustified war against a sovereign, neighboring state. Russia’s government is attempting to keep its citizens in the dark about the atrocities it is committing against the people of Ukraine.”

“The Kremlin’s war, he continued, “has left Russia isolated internationally, and it is robbing Russian citizens of the possibility of building a better future in harmony with their neighbors.  This isolation is not inevitable, but results from the decisions of Russia’s leaders.”

The Atlantic Council, an American think tank, in February wrote: Russia stands accused of committing a vast array of crimes in Ukraine. Russians have allegedly engaged in the systematic targeting of Ukrainian civilians with the bombardment of civilian homes, infrastructure, churches, and schools. Alleged Russian crimes also include rape, torture, mass trafficking of adults and children, forcible disappearances, and the execution of surrendering Ukrainian soldiers.”

READ MORE: Pride Month Purge: Pentagon Chief Defends Renaming USNS Harvey Milk and Trans Ban

Critics blasted Secretary Rubio.

Calling the Secretary “just another mouthpiece for the Kremlin,” Professor of Economics Roman Sheremeta wrote that the “greeting from Marco Rubio on ‘russia day’ — a country waging a genocidal war against Ukraine — is an insult to the millions of Ukrainians who suffer daily from russian aggression.”

“Let’s be clear,” Professor Sheremeta continued, “this isn’t about ‘supporting the russian people.’ It’s about legitimizing a regime that kills, deports, tortures, and bombs civilians every day. A regime that is still committing genocide.”

Daily Beast columnist Julia Davis, a Russia expert, wrote that “Rubio’s State Department sending congratulations on Russia National Day and pining for better relations” was “an unusual way of condemning Russia’s invasion.”

Former Ukraine government official Olena Tregub is the co-founder of an anti-corruption non-governmental organization.

“A few months ago,” she wrote, “I got an email from Secretary of State Marco Rubio: our work was suspended – not in the U.S. national interest. Today, another email: congratulations to Russia on its National Day. As a Ukrainian, I got the message loud and clear.”

Marko Mihkelson, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Estonian Parliament, asked: “Can you imagine the U.S. Secretary of State in 1943 congratulating Nazi Germany and wishing them a bright future?”

READ MORE: ‘In This House We Don’t Interrupt’: Democrats Smack Down Treasury Secretary

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘In This House We Don’t Interrupt’: Democrats Smack Down Treasury Secretary

Published

18 hours ago

on

June 11, 2025

By

House Democrats, apparently frustrated by interruptions from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, decided to lay down the law—scolding and chastising him during Wednesday’s Ways and Means Committee hearing. Interruptions and delaying tactics, and apparent acts of “filibustering,” have been a hallmark of Trump administration officials’ testimony before Congress this week.

U.S. Rep. Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands’ at-large district, said to Bessent, “We have seen since January 20th that the stock market overall has gone down 1.3% and gas has gone up.”

“Ma’am, that’s incorrect,” Bessent interjected.

“Excuse me,” Delegate Plaskett replied. “Let me get something straight with you first here,” she declared as the Secretary continued to try to interrupt.

READ MORE: Pride Month Purge: Pentagon Chief Defends Renaming USNS Harvey Milk and Trans Ban

“I’ve seen you interrupt everyone. When you come to someone’s house, you respect their rules. And in this house, we don’t interrupt individuals, and you’re not going to interrupt my time. I’m going to give you time to respond,” she offered.

“You may want to jot down some notes about things that you don’t agree with me on, so that you can respond to them at that time, but while I’m speaking, as the person holding this time, you will refrain from speaking, sir, until I am done.”

“I look forward—” Bessent said, interrupting again.

“Until I am done, and then I will give you time to speak, okay?” Plaskett said.

Bessent later disputed Plaskett’s facts, telling her that “the S&P, if the congresswoman would care to check Bloomberg, the stock market as judged by the S&P, which is the most widely held index by Americans’ 401(k)s, is up on the year.”

As NJ.com reported, the “S&P 500 closed at $6,049.24 on Jan. 21, 2025 and closed at $6,038.81 on June 11, 2025.”

Plaskett was not alone.

READ MORE: ‘The Generals Stay Silent’: Experts Alarmed as Trump Politicizes Army at Fort Bragg Rally

U.S. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) also berated Bessent for his constant interruptions.

“Unfortunately, you appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth,” she told Bessent, “because you yourself have admitted, after conversations with Walmart, that some tariff costs are going to get passed on to consumers. And in fact, we’ve already seen that prices are rising on many everyday goods.”

“No, Congresswoman,” Bessent said, interrupting her remarks.

“Please don’t interrupt me,” Sánchez said.

“Today we had a 1.1% increase—” Bessent continued.

“The time is mine. Please don’t interrupt me.”

“And, and,” Bessent continued.

“I will ask you questions, and I will grant you an opportunity to answer them,” she explained, “but please don’t interrupt me during my time.”

“With pleasure,” Bessent said, interrupting her again.

“Okay, I know I’m a woman, but please try to limit yourself to answering my questions,” she urged, to which House Republicans reportedly groaned.

“No, I’m sorry,” Sánchez continued, addressing their response, “but we get talked over all the time and I don’t want that to happen at this hearing.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Show. Us. The. Plan.’: Pentagon Chief Ripped for Dodging Budget Details in Heated Hearing

Continue Reading

News

Pride Month Purge: Pentagon Chief Defends Renaming USNS Harvey Milk and Trans Ban

Published

21 hours ago

on

June 11, 2025

By

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, testifying before Congress, offered his rationale for stripping the USNS Harvey Milk of its name and for the administration’s decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.

The USNS Harvey Milk is named for the assassinated veteran and LGBTQ rights advocate. Milk was gunned down in 1978 at the age of 48 while serving as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was the first openly gay man elected in California.

U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), appearing to question the necessity of unnaming and renaming the ship, told Secretary Hegseth: “You chose Pride month to direct the Navy to rename a ship named for Navy veteran Harvey Milk. This committee will continue to pursue serious work in the interests of American national security, and I ask you to choose to join us in that endeavor.”

READ MORE: ‘The Generals Stay Silent’: Experts Alarmed as Trump Politicizes Army at Fort Bragg Rally

Hegseth replied, “Um, Senator, we’re not interested in naming ships after activists. That’s the stance we’re taking.”

As recently as Tuesday, Hegseth told service members, “We’re not interested in your woke garbage and your political correctness.” 

Reports have stated Hegseth intentionally chose Pride Month to strip the USNS Harvey Milk, and other ships, of their names.

USNI News reported that Harvey Milk “commissioned into the Navy in 1951 and served as a diver during the Korean War on the submarine rescue ship Kittiwake. He was discharged in 1955. Milk was wearing his U.S. Navy diver belt buckle when he was shot and killed in 1978.”

Senator Baldwin also asked Hegseth to explain why he and the administration decided to ban transgender service members.

“What assessment did the Department of Defense conduct prior to implementation to evaluate the impact that this policy would have on our national security?” Baldwin asked. “Moreover, what is the cost to recruit and train thousands of individuals of comparable experience and skill?”

READ MORE: ‘Show. Us. The. Plan.’: Pentagon Chief Ripped for Dodging Budget Details in Heated Hearing

“Thankfully, recruiting is not an issue,” Hegseth claimed. “It’s historically high levels and we’re proud of the cross section of Americans in life.”

“What analysis did you do?” Baldwin pressed.

“We did extensive analysis, Senator,” Hegseth insisted, “and we agree with the assessment of the executive order that was issued by the White House, that there are mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria that complicate military service and readiness, and as a result, we made the decision.”

“I have asked for that analysis,” Baldwin stressed. “Please provide it to me and the committee.”

Studies have shown that transgender service members in the military do not negatively affect military readiness.

Watch the videos below or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Doesn’t Even Know Who He’s Talking to’: Newsom Scorches Trump Over Military Deployment

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.