The US Policies to Cut Drug Use - Research Paper Example

Current Policies in Effect in the CJ System Policies are set by the governing body in enforcement in a given state, aiming at regulating and controlling human activities. Drug policies aim at regulating the demand and supply of drugs in the state. This is most especially on those drugs which cause harm and addiction when abused. Governments enforce policies which limit drug use through imposing fines, prohibition and treatment. The government also engages in awareness campaigns, family support and community social services. In terms of supply, measures such as foreign policies aim at eradicating the cultivation of plants used to make drugs internationally. This also aims at reduction of drug trafficking activities. Some of the existing policies include drug substitution programs and free facilities for testing a drug’s purity. In US, the drug policy alliance is an organization which promotes drug policies which are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. The supporters of this alliance believe that the war on drugs presents more harm than good in society. The group advances policies which reduce harms brought by drug use, and drug prohibition as well as seek solutions which uphold individual sovereignty over their minds and bodies as well as their safety. Harms such as incarceration, arrests and disenfranchisements mostly affect people of color disproportionately. The drug policy alliance aims to reduce these kinds of harms caused by the existing policies, Dumont, M. P. (2002). In order to achieve this, the Drug Policy alliance is actively involved in the legislative process. This assists them to promote efficient drug policy reforms, block old and new harmful initiatives. Some of the successful approaches have led to thousands of people gaining access to medicine safely, rather than using incarceration drug treatment programs, which rendered them criminally liable under previous laws. In other states in California, this alliance has reduced wasteful and ineffective law enforcement procedures, prosecution and prison expenditures. Some policies have emerged as a result of an increment in number of persons with mental illness and the processes they pass through in the criminal justice system. Criminal justice professionals make contact at every stage in the criminal justice process with persons suffering from severe mental illness due to the increment in number of fundamental changes in mental health law enforcement policies. This is done by the police, who are the criminal justice system watchdogs. In response to public service calls involving PSMIs, Criminal justice professionals dispatch police officers every 6.5 minutes. According to Fichtner, (2006), the police officers often arrest PSMIs due to lack of large scale diversion programs where no better option exists to curb their public disruptive behavior. They then subject them to housing and treatment where necessary. As the arrested PSMIs pass through the criminal justice system, there exist some principal actors who respond to their needs. For judges, individuals with characteristics which fall outside specific forensic categories limit justice administration alternatives. In prison, jail administrators face the challenge of offering care and safety conditions for the mentally ill. Another great challenge that the officers face is that the correctional programs fail to be consistent with traditional case management systems. Under community supervision or court sentences, their disorders complicate the ability to release them, which is also expensive since they need special care. Deinstitutionalization is another transformation made on the mental health policy. It focuses on shifting the duty of care on mentally ill persons from the psychiatric institutions, to home based treatment bodies. Torrey, et al (2009) asserts that this policy led to the processing of mentally ill persons through the criminal justice systems, which would be referred to community based care facilities rather than in hospitals. This also led to the transfer of financial burden from care of such persons from the state and members of the local community to the federal government through the Medicaid program. This presented the overall result of a constant increment in the number of mentally ill persons in the community. Due to lack of full funding and support from policy makers and researchers, deinstitutionalization soon fell short of achieving its goals. Other challenges include lack of clear set goals on federal standards and limitations in evidence – based practices, which led to a period of neglect for the mentally ill persons. The states failed to ensure providence of resources and infrastructure to cater for the patients released to the community based agencies. The policy catered for minor outpatient treatment, but inefficiently cared for patients with severe chronic mental disorders with limited financial resources and social support. This policy also led to the dispersion of mentally ill persons to residential areas, thus inhibiting monitoring activities. Abramson, (2012) claims that public psychiatric hospitals turned into treatment facilities for poor persons, while the length of hospital stays for patients decreased due to change in hospital policies inclined to saving money. Due to the increased financial burden on the federal government, its expenditures to social welfare programs left patients with less treatment, and basic needs. This rendered the mentally ill persons to dominate the underclass society. This also led to the emergence of complicated service systems, lack of coordination, and a bureaucratic system which limits access to services. The effects of this policy still reflect in today’s society where mentally ill persons are younger, with more violence and criminal involvement in the community, as compared with those found before the implementation of the policy. The mental health law reform has also been a stumbling block towards the access of treatment to mentally ill persons. This has also led to the placement of mentally ill persons to the criminal justice system. This subjects mentally ill persons to arrests and processing of their cases through the courts. Kiesler, (2005) recommends that the mental health law requires clear and convincing evidence from hospital staff that involuntary admitted patients pose a threat to themselves and others, or are unable to care for themselves as a result of the illness. Mental health workers recommend involuntary admission as one of the ways to capture the homeless mentally ill persons and others without social support services into treatment. However, the mental health law focuses on the most dangerous and mentally ill persons’ treatment. This renders the community prone to criminal acts by mentally ill persons, who find themselves in the criminal justice system. This is because PSMIs cannot be hospitalized against their will without full judicial hearing or legal representation. This diminished the use of hospitalization of PSMIs, thus not receiving any form of treatment at all. Fragmented care and the compartmentalized nature of mental health systems have also contributed to the high growth of mentally ill persons in the criminal justice system. Dumont, (2002) claims that there lacks overall coordination between mental healthcare and other treatment providers. The mental health providers have fragmented systems as well, where psychiatric programs focus on specific mental health problems. Other drug treatment professionals also refrain from administering treatment to mentally ill persons. This may be attributed to the fact that mentally ill persons who concurrently involve themselves in substance abuse are difficult to engage in treatment. They are also resistant to efforts made to prevent them from using alcohol and illicit drugs. These patients are labeled as dangerous and resistant to drugs. The drug enforcement law has also rendered many mentally ill persons prone to encountering the criminal justice system. The existing war on drugs and illicit substance abuse has led to the convicting of mentally ill persons. Drug traffickers are subject to longer prison terms than other criminal offenders. Over the years, the number of drug traffickers in prison or probation has raised substantially reports Fichtner, et al (2006). Among these prisoners are individuals are some who have co-occurring psychiatric disorders, thus increasing the number of mentally ill patients in the criminal justice system. PSMIs who use illicit drugs are more prone to violent actions, and likewise more arrests and incarceration. This could be attributed to the fact that substance use disorders have a greater effect on criminal behavior than mental illness. The criminal justice system also allows public-order policing, which allows the police to arrest nuisance related crimes. This involves zero tolerance policies in response to public order offenses. This includes loitering, trespassing, and peace disturbance, urinating in public and other activities which degrade the quality of life. Most of the arrested offenders are mentally ill and homeless persons. These actions greatly influence the manner in which police officers will treat PSMI’S cases. Torrey, et al (2009) recommends that the criminal justice system should enforce the use of proactive strategies such as primary prevention. Provision of community based services that address the economic and social needs of PSMIs should then follow. References Abramson, M. F. (2012). The criminalizing of mentally disordered behavior: Possible side-effects of a new mental health law. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 23, 101-107. Dumont, M. P. (2002). Review of Private lives/public spaces, by E. Baxter & K. Hopper, and Shopping bag ladies, by A. M. Rousseau. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 367-369. Fichtner, C. G., & Cavanaugh, J. L. (2006). Malignant criminalization: From hypothesis to theory. Psychiatric Services, 57, 1511-1512. Kiesler, C. A. (2005). Public and professional myths about mental hospitalization: An empirical reassessment of policy-related beliefs. American Psychologist, 37, 1323-1339. Torrey, E.F., & Kaplan, R.J. (2009). A national survey of the use of outpatient commitment. Psychiatric Services, 46, 778-784. Read More