Policies for Illicit Drug Use in Australia - Coursework Example

Running Head: HEALTH AND ILLICIT DRUG USE Use of Illicit Drugs on the Health Policy Agenda Of Australia: Discussion on Contemporary Influences and Pressures Name of the student Under the guidance of University APA format Date of submission Introduction Use of illicit drugs has been a challenging problem all over the world since many years. Drugs whose consumption, production or sale is prohibited by law are known as illicit drugs. According to AIHW (2008), "Illicit drug use covers: 1. the use of drugs which are illegal to possess (such as heroin and ecstasy). 2. the use of volatile substances as inhalants (such as glue, solvent and petrol). 3. the non-medical use of prescribed drugs." Concerns over illicit drug use mainly arise because of the disastrous consequences which occur due to these addictive drugs. Many countries, all over the world, including Australia, have categorized illicit drug use as one of the health issues and many laws and policies have been formulated and enforced to check illicit drug intake. However, statistics show that the problem continues and more and more people are falling prey to the consequences of drug abuse (NDS, 2008). The Australian government has put illicit drug abuse under health agenda because of various contemporary pressures and influences, the details of which will be elaborated in the discussion below. Policies for illicit drug use in Australia Amongst all the countries in the world, Australia is at the forefront as far as drug policing is concerned (NDS, 2008). The National Drug Strategy (NDS) was implemented in 1985 (NDS, 2008) and has steered the comprehensive approach to the harmful use of illicit drugs. It has been launched through cooperation of Australian, state and territory governments. The 3 main policies endorsed by the Australian government to tackle illicit drug abuse are reduction of demand, reduction of supply and reduction of harm (Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 2004). The most important policy is the harm reduction policy which is actually a safety net to the other two policies (Zadjow, 2005). and involves strategies to prevent the harmful effects of drug abuse both to the person and the society. The National Drugs Campaign (NDC, 2009) is a nation-wide programme with aims and objectives to bring down the motivation of young Australians for consumption of illicit drugs. The Ministry for Health and Ageing of the Australian government has developed and endorsed many more strategies to tackle illicit drug abuse, some of which in the recent years are "National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy 2008-2011", "Management of Patients with Psychostimulant Use Problems. Guidelines for General Practitioners updated 2007", "The Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs National Drug Strategic Framework", "Barriers and Incentives to Treatment for Illicit Drug Users with Mental Health Comorbidities and Complex Vulnerabilities", "Cannabis in Australia - Use, supply, harms and responses" and "National Pharmacotherapy Policy for People Dependent on Opioids" (NDS, 2008). Contemporary Pressures The Government of Australia has been influenced by many pressures on the creation of policy for illicit drug use in Australia, the details of which are elaborated below. 1. Statistics According to the National Health Survey of Australia (cited in AIHW, 2008), in the year 2004-05, about 28% of Indigenous non-remote living people aged atleast 15 years of age resorted to recent (preceding 12 months) illicit drug use and 49% tried intake of illicit drug atleast once in their lifetime. The rate of recent drug abuse was more in males (32%) than in females. (25%). Age group between 25 years and 34 years saw the highest incidence of recent drug abuse (38%). Among non-Indigenous Australians, according to the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (cited in AIHW, 2008), the incidence of recent illicit drug exposure in those above 14 years of age was 15%. Thus it can be said that amongst Australian population, Indigenous young men are more likely to consume illicit drugs. The most commonly taken illicit drug is cannabis, next to which is ecstasy (AIHW, 2008). The survey in 2007 also revealed that recent consumption of illicit drugs in children between 12- 15 years was 4.6%. The main drug used by these children was marijuana, followed by analgesics (AIHW, 2008). 2. Health Pressures According to the WHO (2002; cited in AIHW, 2008) 0.4% of deaths and 0.8% of total burden of disease globally is because of illicit drug abuse. The AIHW (2008) opines that "illicit drug use is a major risk factor for ill health and death, being associated with HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C virus (HCV), low birth weight, malnutrition, infective endocarditis (leading to damage to the heart valves), poisoning, mental illness, suicide, self-inflicted injury and overdose." Records of 2005-06 suggest that 73% of those who have reported to consume illicit drug abuse, admitted that they take multiple drugs (AIHW, 2008). Illicit drug abuse is associated with significant morbidity. It can lead to increased attendance to emergency departments and increased hospital separations. One of the most common and serious consequence of illicit drug abuse is overdose. Overdose is particularly common with heroin (Dietze et al, 2004). Illicit drugs not only affect the physical health, they also have an impact on the mental health of the people and cause severe psychological distress. Recent reports have pointed to the association between cannabis use and psychosis (AIHW, 2008). 3. Social Pressures Illicit drug abuse can have an impact on the family and the society. Drug users may neglect family and spend all the money for procuring the drugs. Due to their engagement in drug abuse, they may attend to jobs rarely or even lose employment. Thus they have financial problems. Consumption of illicit drugs may decrease the chances of a person of getting into jobs (UNDP, 1995). Guilt and shame may embrace many drug users and they may coil themselves into a shell and avoid socializing with family and friends. Infact, they may prefer to only make friends with those who take drugs. The negative influence of peers dominates the good advice and company of parents, friends and relatives. Some who contract infections like HIV and hepatitis B may pass on to their sexual partners. Illicit drug abuse can also lead to offenses and legal consequences like sexual abuse, accidents, theft and drug trafficking, creating a threat to the society (Spooner, McPherson & Hall, 2004). Drug offences are usually considered as indictable offenses and may be heard in local or higher courts. The trials may end in prisoning or fine or both (Degenhardt, and Dietze, 2005). 4. Political Parties (Ideology) Policy creation by the government is influenced by certain powerful forces known as Ideologies (Evans, 2006). The Policy on illicit drug use has been driven by both Coalition and Labor. Reports of the Federal Parliamentary Committee in 2007 indicated that the current measures to minimize harmful side effects of illicit drug abuse are insufficient and that there should be a zero-tolerance policy to illicit drug abuse and more measures like school education should be implemented. The report also suggested that priority must be given to fund treatments will make individuals drug-free permanently (Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, 2007). 5. Lobby Groups The practice of influencing decisions made by government either in groups or individually is known as lobbying. It includes "all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups" (BBC News, 2008). Various health lobby groups have a major influence on the government policy making. These include researchers, psychiatrists, and physicians. The Ministerial Council of the Commonwealth, the state and the territories have influenced policy making of illicit drug use (Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 2004). Of interest is the research- group who criticize the politicians for not taking medical and research literature into account while making policies (DPMP, 2009). 6. Public opinion and media According to Simmons (cited in DPMP, 2009), "the realities of democratic politics dictate that many policy decisions also need to be acceptable to a majority of the voting population." Public opinion has played a role in the agenda setting process of illicit drug abuse(Simmons, ciited in DPMP, 2008). Media has a major role in influencing policy making by providing proper information to the people and also by addressing various issues related to concerns over illicit drug use (DPMP, 2008). 7. Economic pressures The Commonwealth, along with funding from the state and territory funds, spends a lot on issues related to illicit drugs. According to Collins and Lapsley (2002), the total cost of illicit drug use in Australia is about $18.3 billion. This cost is the summation of the economic productivity loss due to use of drugs and costs to health care like rehabilitation, detoxification and other treatments. Other than this, the amount spent on prevention of drug trafficking and legal aspects of illicit drugs is also enormous. 8. The Australian health care system The Australian health care environment is a complex one with inclusion of many types of private and public service providers. The system is regulated and funded by many mechanisms. Health sevice is provided by medical pactitioners, nurses, hospital, clinics, other health professionals, and government and non-government agencies. Funding is done by health insurers, government, non-government agencies and individual Austalians (AIHW, 2008). The coordination of the public health care delivery system lies on the Australian government and also the health ministers of the states and territories, supported by Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council or AHMAC (AIHW, 2008). Records of 2005-06 suggest that 25% of people who seek treatment for alcohol and substance abuse are those who consume cannabis, 14% are those who take heroin and 11% are those who take amphetamine. The various treatment aspects provided for these clients are counselling, detoxification and withdrawal management, assessment, provision of proper information and education, extension of support and rehabilitation. Of these, 38% of treatment was provided by counselling alone. In the year, 2005-06, 1.1.% of all hospital separations were accounted for by principal diagnosis of illicit drug abuse (AIHW, 2008). Agenda Setting Process Policy-making for illicit drug use took a turn with the initiation of National Drug Startegy (2006). Through this various policies were developed to curb the effects of illicit drug use. Many theories have been put forth to explain the influence of various groups in policy making for illicit drug use in Australia (Gunaratnam, 2005). While some theories focus on the public opinion in issues of high salience, others groups like professionals and politicians have a more critical role to play in bringing the agenda to a shape and providing viable solutions. The Ministerial Council for Drug Strategy was formed through the NDS which delegated various policies related to illicit drug use. According to Ritter and Bammer (cited in DPMP, 2008), "policy making is a complex and messy process, with different models describing different elements." Commonwealth laws criminalize the import and export of certain drugs (including narcotics and cannabis) and there are several other policies that prevent the possession of small quantities of illicit drugs, diversionary programs under Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative, drug courts to deal with offenders dependent on drugs. Burton, 2004) The enforcements are endorsed by the government in conjunction with police. There are many models of policy making. One such model is the technical or rational approach that outlines various key steps in the process of policy making right from the identification of problems, to evaluation of their cause , through examination and choice of various response options after implementation and evaluation. However, this model has certain limits, in the sense that it ignores the political aspects which dominate the policy making (Ritter and Bammer, cited in DPMP, 2008). Other models which have influenced the policy making are power and pressure groups and advocacy coalitions. One important model which is worth mentioning is the incrementalist model which has advocated the school-based drug education and other such small amendments to policy. A popular model "Medically Supervised Injecting Center" became unpopular soon due to conflicts in interest groups (Gunaratnam, 2005). The multiple steams framework, alerts various researchers to windows of opportunity and through this model, the cannabis policy in Western Australia was exploited (Ritter and Bammer, cited in DPMP, 2008). Most of the policies in Australia pertaining to illicit drug use have been based on the interests to prevent the ill effects of illicit drug use. There is some evidence to show the effects of the various policies on the drug use. Review of surveys pertaining to illicit drug use from 1993 to 2007 (the latest) shows a declining trend in illicit drug use. The most commonly used illicit drug is cannabis or marijuana. The latest survey has shown 9% rate of consumption of this substance. The rate has actually declined over year. Consumption of pain killers, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, inhalants, heroin and barbiturates has decreased and the use of cocaine has soared (AIHW, 2008). Research on priorities of current policies suggested that the top priority was amphetamine, followed by prevention. Some other priority areas which have been elaborated are examination of the whole government approaches, evaluation of concerned economy, policy frameworks and measurement of policy outcomes (Ritter, 2007; cited in DPMP, 2009). According to Ritter (2009; cited in DPMP, 2009), policy decisions are influenced by a number of factors like ideology and values, politics, perceived opinions of the public and other pragmatic constraints like funding, work force and resources. A research conducted by Ritter (2009; cited in DPMP, 2009) showed that the most frequent information sources for policy making in illicit drug use are expert and technical report consultation. Other sources of information include internet, statistical data and policy maker consultation. The least information source used was academic literature. Conclusion The Government of Australia has recognized the importance of curbing illicit drug use and has developed many policies through various theories and models of policy-making. The health agenda setting process of illicit drug use has been influenced by various contemporary pressures like health-associated problems, social problems, political pressures, statistical information, lobby groups, public opinion, health care system and media. The National Drug Strategy is the most important initiative that has driven the action against illicit drug use. References Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or AIHW. (2008). Australia’s health 2008. Cat. no. AUS 99. Canberra: AIHW. BBC News. (2008). Lobbying. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/82529.stm Burton, K. (2004) Illicit Drugs in Australia: Use, Harm and Policy Responses. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved on 17th October, 2009 from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/illicitdrugs.htm Degenhardt, L., and Dietze, P. (2005). Date sources on illicit drug use and harm in Australia. Drug Policy Modelling project. Monograph.10. Retrieved on 17th October, 2009 from http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:8mz2t7oB9nUJ:www.dpmp.unsw.edu.au/DPMPWeb.nsf/resources/DPMP%2BMonographs2/%24file/DPMP%2BMONO%2B10.pdf+Health+police+theory+and+models+related+to+illicit+drug+use+in+Australia&hl=en&gl=in&sig=AFQjCNEZq6hM8o2vLgPCvCW-oCu6GwOSbw Dietze, P., Jolley, D., Cvetkovski, S., Cantwell, K., Jacobs, I., & Indig, D. (2004). Characteristics of non-fatal opioid overdose attended by ambulance services in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 28(6), 569-575. Drug Policy Modelling Program. or DPMP. (2009). Studying Policy Making Retrieved on 20th October, 2009 from . UNSWhttp://www.dpmp.unsw.edu.au/DPMPWeb.nsf/page/Studying%20Policy%20Making Gunaratnam, P. (2005). Dug Policy in Austrlia: The supervised injecting facilities debate. Retrieved on 20th October, 2009 http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/43149/1/PDP05-2.pdf Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (2004). The National Drug Strategy: Australia’s integrated framework. Canberra: The Commonwealth of Australia Mazerolle, l., Soole, D and Rombouts, S. (2007). Drug Law Enforcement: A Review of the Evaluation Literature. Police Quaterly, 10, 115- 153. National Campaign Against Drug Abuse or NCADA. (2009). Welcome to the National Drugs Campaign. Retrieved on 17th October, 2009 from http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/ National Drug Strategy or NDS. (2008). National Drug Strategy. Retrieved on 17th October, 2009 from http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/ National Drug Strategy or NDS. (2008). National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy 2008-2011. Retrieved on 17th October, 2009 from http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/ats-strategy-08 Spooner, McPherson & Hall (2004). The role of police in preventing and minimising illicit drug use and its harms. National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund. Retrieved on 17th October, 2009 from http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Mono%2002%20Summary.pdf Stevens, A. (2007). When two dark figures collide: Evidence and discourse on drug-related crime. Critical Social Policy, 27, 77. UNDP. (1995). The Social Impact of Drug Abuse. Position paper for the World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 6-12 March 1995). Retrieved on 17th October, 2009 from http://www.unodc.org/pdf/technical_series_1995-03-01_1.pdf Standing Committee on Family and Human Services (2007). The winnable war on drugs: The impact of illicit drug use on families. Canberra: The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Weatherburn, D., & Lind, B. (1997). The impact of law enforcement activity on a heroin market. Addiction, 92(5), 557-569. Zajdow, G. (2005). What are we scared of? The absence of sociology in current debates about drug treatments and policies. Journal of Sociology, 41, 185. Read More