Is There a Need to Try a New Approach to the Use of Currently Illegal Substances in Society - Case Study Example

ALCOHOL AND DRUGS: Is there a need to try some new approach to the use of currently illegal substances in our society, or do you agree with the current approach in Australia (including legislation, prohibition, harm reduction, education and criminal prosecution? Name Institution Date This essay examines the effectiveness of current Australian legislation and strategies including harm reduction, prohibition, education, and criminal prosecution in addressing the increasing use of drugs in the society. Drug-use was not part of law-enforcement in Australia and other Western societies until in the late nineteenth-century (DrugInfo, 2012). Australia enacted its first drug law in 1857, imposing import duty on Opium. Early drug-laws were mainly to regulate Australian-entry issues and medicinal use of drugs. Recreational drug-use emerged in the 1960’s showing widespread use of cannabis, LSD, heroin and other psychoactive drugs for pleasure and spiritual enlightenment (DrugInfo) but these also corresponded with increased crime rate (Mackay, 2001). The government reacted by altering legislation to increase law-enforcement and assert stiff penalties for drug-offences (Drugs Info). The newly enacted drug laws in the 1970s differentiated between use and possession, and supply offences (Drugs Info). A 1998 ‘tough-on-drugs’ strategy was introduced in 1998 targeting to minimize trafficking, supply, and demand of drugs as well as their associated harm (UNODC, 2008, p.5). Despite punitive drug policies, drug-use, both legal and illicit has consistently received media attention (Hart & Ksir, 2011, p. 5). A Global Commission Report on Drug Policy documented that opioid use increased by 35%, cocaine use by 27%, and cannabis use by 8.5% in only a decade (Douglas & McDonald, 2013, p. 12). Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2010 showed about 15% of youth had used one or more illicit drugs including cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, and cocaine, within a year (Douglas & McDonald, 2013, p. 14). AOD use is spread across the entire demographics of age, gender, education level, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and indigenous population. Indigenous people of Australia experience substance misuse problems associated with a complex mix of historical and current socio-political factors (Reconciliation Australia, p.2). These include being given alcohol rations in exchange for labour, and dispossession of their land, discrimination, family separation, which cause trauma, leading to substance dependency, and unemployment, systematic poor living standards, and inadequate access to medical and educational facilities (Reconciliation Australia, p.2). In addition, mainstream interventions provided in medical and health facilities are culturally-inappropriate because of linguistic differences and lack of cultural-understanding making it more difficult to minimize harm among the indigenous communities (Reconciliation Australia, p.2). The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill was considered discriminatory for not considering community responses from the Northern Territory Aboriginal people (Freitas, 2012). The National Drug Strategy (NDS) 2010-15 recognizes the need for socially inclusive interventions which recognize specific vulnerabilities and needs of marginalized groups (ANCD, 2011, p.7). The government adopted NDS in 1985, and proceeds through 2010-2015 aimed at building safe and healthy communities through the three pillars of demand reduction, supply reduction, and harm reduction. Demand reduction applies to reduce AOD uptake and provide support measures to overcome dependence and enhance social inclusion, ‘Supply reduction’ to minimize supply and availability of illegal drugs, Harm Reduction, to stop/avoid poor health and socio-economic effects to individuals and society (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011, p.2) ). These will apply to all drug types but in customized ways depending on the status of drugs whether legal/illegal. Many harms can result from drug-use at both individual and social levels resulting in high costs (Roberts et al., 2006, pp.3-5) associated with health and hospital systems, accidents, crime and loss of workplace productivity, mostly a reflection of general community use (WorkSafe, 2005, p.3). Negative birth outcomes such as low birth weight, brain and developmental defects have been associated with drinking and or smoking, during pregnancy (ANCD, p.2; Rassool, 2009, pp.194-195). Tobacco smoking is a major risk factor for many chronic diseases including lung cancer (Dolinsky & Hill-Kayser, 2008). In cases of drugs like heroine, injecting promotes the spread of blood-related infections including Hepatitis and HIV/AIDS (AODCA, 2003, p.2; Rassool, 2009, p.94) and morbidity associated with such illnesses (AVERT 2013). Supporting approaches for the three pillars of the NDS are creating a qualified workforce to ensure delivery of the strategy, ensure partnership across sectors, consumer governance participation, evidence-based, informed practices and innovation, and performance measures (ANCD, 2011, p.3). Reformers are divided in opinions regarding illicit drug policies. Politically, Social Conservatives want strictly prohibitionist approaches for drug-use and control, while Neo-liberals see excessive government control on the matter as interfering with individual liberty, and instead favour drug liberalization and harm reduction approaches (Mendes, 2013). Some reformers are opting for legalisation of currently illegal drugs but with some control to protect vulnerable groups like children; decriminalization, or reducing crime charges in drug-possession; and de-penalisation or retaining current drug laws but reducing penalty (Douglas & McDonald, 2013, p. 6; Shapiro, 2005, p.2). Prohibitionists are solely favouring abstinence and demand law enforcement that exclusively hinders the use of illicit drugs and argue that legalizing drugs would worsen drug-related issues and increase the number of users, in turn escalating criminal activity (Goldberg, 1998, p.2). They view the use of drugs as a criminal or immoral behaviour, rather than a health issue, or one which requires an alternative strategy such as harm reduction (Mendes, 2007, p. 3), which some view as a way to rationalize drug-legalization (Goldberg, 1998, p.104). Nevertheless, both sides propose a coordinated international effort to fight the increased production of marijuana, heroine, and cocaine (Goldberg, 1998, p.34). Whilst this ‘war-on-drugs’ approach by criminalizing supply and use of certain drugs, as well as place heavy penalties on offenders has been in effect, still 400 Australians die annually from illicit drug-use while others suffer short and long-term health consequences entailing drug-dependency, unsafe injection practices (Douglas & McDonald, 2013, p. 5). Harm reduction approaches including needle and syringe exchanges, supervised injecting facilities, methadone treatment programs, and prescribed heroin provide safer drug-use environments, beneficial to both individual and society (IWGDCR, 2006, pp.2). Reformers opting for harm reduction approaches emphasize on its ability to minimize negative effects resulting from drug-use (Cantopher, 1999, p. 25) and view drug-use as a public health problem rather than a legal problem (Condon, 2011). Accepting drug use does not mean condoning it (Bowen, 2010) but viewing it realistically, that some drug-use will still occur even with prohibitive laws hence the need to minimize the harm (DrugInfo, 2012; Roche & Evans, 2000, p.152). Using punitive law enforcement to eliminate illicit drug-use may instead increase drug-related harm by marginalizing and stigmatising the users and intimidating them from accessing help from treatment agencies (Mendes, 2007, p.4). In cases where users are pregnant women, it is inappropriate to prosecute them as they may be dissuaded from seeking prenatal care and treatment (Goldberg, 1998, p.93). Drug users should not be treated as criminals (Swan, 2009, p.9) because when treated as a crime, drug-use has led to a lot of arrests, incarceration and interdiction exerting costs and a burden to the criminal justice system (Goldberg, 1998, p.294). Without treatment and effective rehabilitation services, drug-users are likely to re-offend leading to re-arrest. Also, other alternatives other than legalization should be explored in regulation and control of drug-use. In my working in an AOD rehabilitation centre, I have witnessed harm caused by various drugs on dependent-users and destruction it can cause to family units and the community. As well the stigma, shame and fear of repercussions attached often prevent(s) many AOD users from admitting a problem and seeking help. Dependent users are likely to have dual diagnosis of substance abuse and a mental issues resulting in co-morbidity disorders (Alvis, 1999, p.67; Rassool, 2009, p.214). Alcohol and drugs abusers already have complex problems intertwined in medical, psycho-social, and legal issues and they require intervention strategies that address their individual needs (Rassool, 2009, p. 359) usually a combination of psychosocial and pharmacological interventions (Peele, 2000, p.268). Approaches of psychosocial intervention include-but not limited to-counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy, brief and long term interventions, supportive work, social skill training, family and complementary therapy, while pharmacological interventions include detoxification, nutritional supplements, and medications for preventing relapse (Magor-Blatch, 2008, p.10; Rassool, 2009, p. 358) or even death. For example, methadone treatments which are synthetic opioids are used in opiate treatment by suppressing withdrawal (Rassool, 2009, p.368). Drug consumption rooms, needle exchange programs, and maintenance therapy are interventions currently employed in Australia. They can greatly minimize harm to individuals and society as they avail spaces for illegal drug use and sterile needles for users to inject drugs (IWGDCR, 2006, pp.1-2). Nicotine and alcohol which are legal and most widely used in Australia have been shown to have more harm, than some illegal drugs (Morris, 2006, p. 5). Compared to tobacco, marijuana is shown to benefit patients dealing with cases of chemotherapy, chronic pain, nausea, epilepsy, migraine, and AIDS. If tobacco which has no useful properties and is more harmful is legal, then marijuana could be legalized for its medicinal uses. On the other hand, regulation of tobacco products should be increased (Fiore & Baker, 2009, p. 1173) with the continuation of targeting packaging, advertisements, ‘Quit smoking campaigns’ and increase in pricing. Alcohol use for patients should be prevented and instead medication such as a benzodiazepine drug (s) which much like alcohol are a depressant, be administered as a tranquiliser under supervised medical care to help with alcohol withdrawal symptoms (Rassool, 2009, p. 368). Harm caused by alcohol and tobacco should be brought to awareness via media campaigns and education (Goldberg, 1998, p.236). Educating children thoroughly and effectively on the potential harm of drug use should act as a better preventive strategy done though specialised school programs and negative advertising (Hart & Ksir, 2011, p.401, 408). Young people should be targeted with preventive strategies as they are more at risk to alcohol and drug use due to peer and developmental pressures, or members of families with history of alcohol abuse (Hart & Ksir, 2011, p.40). Strategies include parental guidance, mentoring, youth initiatives, prompt availability of substance-abuse facilities for both children, and parents. It would be hypocritical to adopt legalization policies while warning children against the dangers of drug-use. Legalization or allowing the use of other drugs in the same way as alcohol and tobacco (NCPIC, 2013) tends to increase acceptability and consumption of drugs (DrugFreeAustralia, 2012, p. 3). Decriminalization or the minimization of criminal charges for users in possession of small amounts of drugs can instead be adopted for some cases, for instance de-criminalizing marijuana for medical use (NCPIC, 2013). Money used on criminal system as well as from taxation of alcohol and drugs should be re-directed to establishing more rehabilitation centres, campaigns, and education. Alternatives strategies for drug-use control and regulation have been used with measurable success in the application of the NDS 2010-15. Incidences of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke have gone down following comprehensive public health approaches including advertising bans, prohibition on smoking in enclosed public spaces, and remarkable investments in media campaigns and public education (ANCD, 2011, p.4). Use of illegal drugs including cannabis and heroine has also declined from 22 percent in 1998 to 13.4 percent in 2007, as reported by a NDS Household Survey. Harms associated with injecting drug use have also reduced with the drug consumption rooms, needle and syringe programs whose benefits outweigh costs in reducing overdoses, crime, HIV infection, and drug-dealing in public areas (IWGDCR, 2006, pp.1-2; Hart & Ksir , 2011, p.41). Alcohol-related road deaths have declined with repudiation of drink-driving within the population through mass public education, media campaigns, introduction of drivers’ mass breath-testing to check for cues of alcohol content among many other road safety initiatives. Non-sniffable Opal fuel introduced in 2005 has contributed to a 70 per cent decline of petrol sniffing across 20 regional and remote communities in Australia. Culturally-competent services are an effective strategy for the culturally-diverse populations built upon cultural knowledge, awareness, and sensitivity (Rassool, 2009, p.313). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders have implemented programs customized for their communities, and as a result have successfully reduced substance dependence problems (Reconciliation Australia, p. 3). Psychosocial and pharmacological interventions provide effective treatment and reduction of substance-misuses, personal and social functioning improvements, minimized public health and safety risks, and decline in criminal behaviour (Rassool, 2009, p. 370). Drug-use has become a major public health problem despite drug policy to curb the issue. Drug-related harm is immense and burdensome to individuals their families and the community. The NDS was established to address the issue through the three pillars of demand-reduction, supply-reduction, and harm-reduction. Prohibitionist groups want exclusive abstinence from drugs, controlled by a tougher criminal system, while liberalists recognize individual liberty and the ineffectiveness of laws to completely end drug-related problems. Complete legalization of drugs might escalate their use and associated problems because of minimized control. Harm-reduction strategies offer a better approach to decrease drug-use and related impact. By determining drug use as a health problem and employing strategies ranging from Drug consumption rooms, needle exchange programs, early preventive programs, psychosocial and pharmacological interventions, education and media campaigns, culturally-appropriate interventions, increased taxation on AOD, and regulated advertisements on present legal substances-alcohol and tobacco, can be combined to make Australia a safer and better place with less risk from alcohol and drug use. Money from taxation of alcohol and tobacco can be diverted to fund further education, and interventions on drug-use and related problems. References: Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia/AODCA (2003) Heroin in policy positions of the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (pp. 1-14). Woden, ACT 1.6: ADCA. Alvis, H (1999). Alcohol: Social and psychological aspects of use and abuse. In Drugs and Life (pp.57-76). Australia’s National Council on Drugs (ANCD). National Drug Strategy 2010-2015: A framework for action on alcohol and other drugs. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.ancd.org.au/images/PDF/NationalStrategies/nds2010.pdf. AVERT (2013) Needle exchange and harm reduction. Accessed on (June 16, 2013) http://www.avert.org/needle-exchange.htm Bowen, J (2010) Accepting drug use does not mean condoning it. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/accepting-drug-use-does- not-mean-condoning-it-20100114-m917.html#ixzz2UZHsSdfY Cantopher, T. (1999). The philosophy of treatment of people with alcohol or drug problems and the place of psychotherapies in their care. In D. Waller & J. Mahoney (Eds.), Treatment of addition: Current issues for arts therapies (pp. 23-45). London: Routledge. Commonwealth of Australia (2011) National Drug Strategy/NDS 2010-15. A framework for action on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. Accessed on (June 16, 2013) http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/Publishing.nsf/content/ DB4076D49F13309FCA257854007BAF30/$File/nds2015.pdf Condon, S (2011/1/27) Obama: Drugs should be treated as a public health problem. CBS News. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- 20029831-503544/obama-drugs-should-be-treated-as-a-public-health-problem/ Dolinsky, C. & Hill-Kayser, C. (2008) Lung cancer: The basics. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://oncolink.org/types/article1.cfm?c=420&id=8037 Douglas, B. & McDonald, D. (2013) The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalizing our children and we are all letting it happen. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.australia21.org.au/publications/press_releases/Australia21_Illicit_Drug_P olicy_Report.pdf Drug Free Australia Position Statement (2012) The case against legalising, regulating or decriminalizing illicit drug usage in Australia. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/DFA-position- statement%20_%20drug%20legalisation_August%202012_ws.pdf DrugInfo (2012) History of drug laws. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.druginfo.sl.nsw.gov.au/drugs/legal/legal_history.html Fiore, M., & Baker, T. (2009) Stealing a March in the 21st Century: Accelerating progress in the 100-year war against tobacco addiction in the United States, American Journal of Public Health, 99(7), 1170-1175. Freitas, F (2012) ACOSS calls on NT government to scrap discriminatory Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Bill. Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Reform Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://health.nt.gov.au/Alcohol_Mandatory_Treatment/index.aspx Goldberg, R. (1998). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in drugs and society, 3rd edition. Hart, C., & Ksir, C. (2011). Drugs, society, & human behaviour, 14th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Independent Working Group on Drug Consumption Rooms/IWGDCR (2006). Drug consumption rooms: Summary report of the independent working group (pp. 1-8). York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Mackay, R (2001) National Drug Policy Australia. Accessed on (June 16, 2013) http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/library/robin-e.htm Magor-Blatch, L (2008) Substance use in the 21st Century: Different or more of the same? InPsych: The Bulletin of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd (October, pp. 8-11). Mendes, P (2007) Fighting the drugs war: The role of prohibitionist groups in Australian illicit drugs policy. Practice Reflexions, 2(1). Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.acwa.org.au/resources/Practice%20Reflexions%20Volume%202/Researc h%20P ublication-10.pdf. Mendes, P (2013) Neo-liberalism and illicit drug liberalization: A natural alliance? Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14926 . Morris, N. (2006). Drug ‘classes’ have little link to the dangers. In The Independent. Published 1 August, 2006. National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre/NCPIC. (2013) Cannabis and the law. Accessed (16 June, 2013) http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-the-law Peele, S (2000). Is total abstinence the only choice for alcoholic? No. In R. Goldberg (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in drugs and society (4th ed., pp. 263-270). Rassool, G. H (2009). Alcohol and Drug Misuse: A Handbook for Students and Health Professionals. Routledge: Oxon Reconciliation Australia. Drug and alcohol use by indigenous people. Accessed on (June 12, 2013 http://www.reconciliation.org.au/getfile?id=1114&file=100611+Drugs+and+Alcohol +QA+%28Final%29.pdf Roberts, M., Bewley-Taylor, D., & Trace, M. (2006) Monitoring drug policy outcomes: The measurement of drug-related harm (pp. 1-18). Roche, A., & Evans, K (2000) Harm reduction. In G. Stokes, P. Chalk & K. Gillen (Eds.), Drugs and democracy: In search of new directions (pp. 142-162). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Shapiro, H. (2005). The reform debate. Channel 4: http://www.channel4.com/health Swan, N. (2009). Portugal’s drug laws. ABC Radio National: The Health Report, Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au United Nations Office on Drug and Crime/UNODC (2008) Drug policy and results in Australia. Accessed on (June 16, 2013) http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and- analysis/Studies/Drug_Policy_Australia_Oct2008.pdf Work Safe Victoria (2005) Alcohol in the workplace: Guidelines for developing a workplace alcohol policy. Accessed on (June 12, 2013) http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/9864/alcohol_workplace. pdf Read More

The National Drug Strategy (NDS) 2010-15 recognizes the need for socially inclusive interventions which recognize specific vulnerabilities and needs of marginalized groups (ANCD, 2011, p.7). The government adopted NDS in 1985, and proceeds through 2010-2015 aimed at building safe and healthy communities through the three pillars of demand reduction, supply reduction, and harm reduction. Demand reduction applies to reduce AOD uptake and provide support measures to overcome dependence and enhance social inclusion, ‘Supply reduction’ to minimize supply and availability of illegal drugs, Harm Reduction, to stop/avoid poor health and socio-economic effects to individuals and society (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011, p.2) ). These will apply to all drug types but in customized ways depending on the status of drugs whether legal/illegal.

Many harms can result from drug-use at both individual and social levels resulting in high costs (Roberts et al., 2006, pp.3-5) associated with health and hospital systems, accidents, crime and loss of workplace productivity, mostly a reflection of general community use (WorkSafe, 2005, p.3). Negative birth outcomes such as low birth weight, brain and developmental defects have been associated with drinking and or smoking, during pregnancy (ANCD, p.2; Rassool, 2009, pp.194-195). Tobacco smoking is a major risk factor for many chronic diseases including lung cancer (Dolinsky & Hill-Kayser, 2008).

In cases of drugs like heroine, injecting promotes the spread of blood-related infections including Hepatitis and HIV/AIDS (AODCA, 2003, p.2; Rassool, 2009, p.94) and morbidity associated with such illnesses (AVERT 2013). Supporting approaches for the three pillars of the NDS are creating a qualified workforce to ensure delivery of the strategy, ensure partnership across sectors, consumer governance participation, evidence-based, informed practices and innovation, and performance measures (ANCD, 2011, p.3). Reformers are divided in opinions regarding illicit drug policies.

Politically, Social Conservatives want strictly prohibitionist approaches for drug-use and control, while Neo-liberals see excessive government control on the matter as interfering with individual liberty, and instead favour drug liberalization and harm reduction approaches (Mendes, 2013). Some reformers are opting for legalisation of currently illegal drugs but with some control to protect vulnerable groups like children; decriminalization, or reducing crime charges in drug-possession; and de-penalisation or retaining current drug laws but reducing penalty (Douglas & McDonald, 2013, p.

6; Shapiro, 2005, p.2). Prohibitionists are solely favouring abstinence and demand law enforcement that exclusively hinders the use of illicit drugs and argue that legalizing drugs would worsen drug-related issues and increase the number of users, in turn escalating criminal activity (Goldberg, 1998, p.2). They view the use of drugs as a criminal or immoral behaviour, rather than a health issue, or one which requires an alternative strategy such as harm reduction (Mendes, 2007, p. 3), which some view as a way to rationalize drug-legalization (Goldberg, 1998, p.104). Nevertheless, both sides propose a coordinated international effort to fight the increased production of marijuana, heroine, and cocaine (Goldberg, 1998, p.34). Whilst this ‘war-on-drugs’ approach by criminalizing supply and use of certain drugs, as well as place heavy penalties on offenders has been in effect, still 400 Australians die annually from illicit drug-use while others suffer short and long-term health consequences entailing drug-dependency, unsafe injection practices (Douglas & McDonald, 2013, p. 5). Harm reduction approaches including needle and syringe exchanges, supervised injecting facilities, methadone treatment programs, and prescribed heroin provide safer drug-use environments, beneficial to both individual and society (IWGDCR, 2006, pp.2). Reformers opting for harm reduction approaches emphasize on its ability to minimize negative effects resulting from drug-use (Cantopher, 1999, p.

Read More