Prohibition+-+a+Solution+or+an+Unrealistic+Expectation?

Varuni Findlay 08841241 Abbey Diaz Artefact The above image presents a simple yet concise argument that relates America’s unsuccessful alcohol prohibition to the current laws regarding illicit drug use. Given that the prohibition of Alcohol in 1920-1933 saw a rise in crime and little decline in usage, it was deemed unsuccessful and a new approach was taken to redress the issue. This picture aims to compare the two situations and make a statement about the current drug laws and their ineffectiveness. By using a black and white photo from a different era, it gives the picture and prohibition approach an old, outdated feel and encourages a new approach to the whole situation.

Public Health Issue This cultural artefact aims to address the current drug approach and analyse its effectiveness. By comparing illegal drug use to the American alcohol prohibition, the viewer is given evidence to support the argument that prohibition is an ineffective method- as criminalizing and banning illicit drugs will not necessarily fix the problem, but instead drive the substance into the underground and simultaneously force more individuals into the criminal justice system. Whilst this artefact does not necessarily condone or encourage illicit drug use, it simply implies that the current approach is not working, and alternate avenues need to be explored.

Literature Review The subject of illegal drug use among the population continues to spark debate and controversy throughout Australia. Recent surveys conducted by the National Drug Strategy Household Survey confirmed that approximately 7.3 million Australians had used an illicit substance at some point in their life, and 3 million had used within 12 months prior to the survey (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2011). Of these figures, those who identified as homosexual/ bisexual had an increased likelihood of using an illicit substance at some point in their lives. A study conducted by McKirnan & Peterson (1989) found that homosexual individuals used drugs at a higher level than heterosexual people, and that this phenomenon could be attributed to greater psychological and social stressors. Additional risk factors apply to those who have never been married, are single without children and whose SES is low.

Evidently, a large percentage of the Australian population has participated in illicit drug use at some point in their life. Because of this, and due to the dangerous nature of these substances, it can be confirmed that illegal drug use is a major issue among the Australian population. However, despite the well-known health implications and illegality of such substances, many individuals still choose to partake in the consumption of these illicit drugs. This produces evidence against prohibition, as although abstinence is an ideal solution, it in not necessarily realistic. Many drug users suffer from addiction- whether it be in the form of psychological or physical dependence. Because of this, criminalising a drug will not reduce the demand, but instead punish those suffering with the addiction. //Harm Minimisation Strategy// As a result of these factors, the Australian Government has implemented a harm minimisation strategy to improve the health of drug users. The harm minimisation strategy is based on the premise that people have and will continue to use illegal drugs regardless of their legal status, and the focus should shift from law enforcement to the individual’s health (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). The harm minimisation strategy is composed of three main pillars- demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction (Australian Government, 2008). Not only does this strategy aim to reduce the amount of drugs available, it also seeks to assist and prevent harm to current drug users. The needle and syringe program (NSP) is one of the most effective initiatives and was introduced in 1986 to provide safe injecting rooms and sterile injecting equipment to prevent the spread of blood borne viruses such as Hepatitis C and HIV (Australian Government, 2005). Although there has been controversy surrounding the NSP program- with many accusing the government of condoning/justifying drug use, this is not the case. Instead, decreases in blood borne viruses can be seen, and it was predicted that approximately 4500 deaths were be prevented by 2010 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). By providing this service, as well as employing other initiatives such as drug courts- which divert criminal convictions and allow an individual to seek treatment instead of jeopardizing their future, the harm is reduced for the individual and the community.

// Needle and Syringe Program injecting room. // However, although these services exist to help problem drug users, there are still numerous issues that need to be addressed. In spite of the available help, many individuals are still using drugs at dangerous levels, and putting their future in jeopardy. Aside from the health concerns, another major issues surrounding illicit drug use is the potential legal consequences. Despite the availability of services such as drug courts that seek to defer conviction, many individuals are unable to avoid criminal convictions and are charged with possession or worse. This jeopardizes the future of the user- as a criminal conviction can make it nearly impossible to find work, get a proper education and become a functioning member of the community. As a result of this, many Australians support the decriminalisation of certain drugs- such as cannabis, as it is believed the legal consequences are far worse than the health and social risks.

Currently, SA, NT and ACT have adopted the concept of cannabis decriminalisation, and are experiencing successful outcomes. By decriminalising the drug, the authorities do not condone the use of cannabis, but instead treat the crime in a less serious manner- whereby a fine is usually applied for possession of a small amount of the substance. Although evidence has been provided to support this initiative, many individuals do not encourage the application of this law onto other states, as they believe this will result in an increase of drug use. However, a study conducted by Donnelly, Hall and Christie (1995), compared the prevalence of cannabis use before and after decriminalisation in SA. The results indicated that although a slight increase in cannabis use could be seen, similar trends could be seen across Australian states, and this change could not be attributed to the decriminalisation of cannabis.

By conducting surveys into illegal drug use, researchers have been able to obtain statistics from the population and identify trends in usage among subpopulations. Additionally, by using such methodologies, they have been able to analyse the effectiveness of government laws and policies and report on the efficiency of various treatment methods. However, several limitations apply to this form of research, as those participating have the propensity to lie in response to the surveys. Additionally, there are several additional factors that could affect drug use- such as mental illness and negative past experiences that have not necessarily been considered.

Cultural and Social Analysis Individual drug use, although a personal choice, is largely determined by social factors and public views on the matter. Over time, the public view on illicit drug use has fluctuated greatly in regards to which drugs present the biggest issue, what the legal status and punishment of particular drugs should be and the social acceptance of illegal drug consumption (Commonwealth of Australia, 1988). These social views are crucial in the formation of public policies and the decision-making process that individuals go through when determining whether or not to use a particular substance. Peer pressure and social groups have long been considered strong determinants of drug use- especially in adolescence. (Andrews, Tildesley, Hops & Li, 2002). Other influential factors such as media disposition and family modeling all influence individuals in framing what is considered socially acceptable behaviour.

In addition to the previously mentioned determinants, additional risk factors apply to individuals who belong to specific social groups. As formerly discussed, those who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT) report significantly higher rates of drug use than heterosexual individuals. According to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (2011), the figure for those who have recently used an illicit drug are 35.7% and 13.9% respectively. This shows a concerning gap between the two groups, as GLBT individuals are almost three times as likely to use an illicit substance. Similarly concerning patterns can be seen between indigenous and non- indigenous Australians. The figures for those who have recently used an illegal drug are 14.2% and 25% respectively. These discrepancies can be accounted for by the differing social stressors individuals experience, as many use illicit drugs as a form of self medication for mental disorders- such as depression, or as a method of gaining social acceptance (Faris, 2012). Cultural factors also play a significant role in the uptake of illegal drugs, as in some cultures drug use can be seen as a rite of passage or a means of sharing and bonding.

//Health Belief Model, Rosenstock (1966).// The health belief model developed by Rosenstock in 1966 provides an explanation as to why certain partake in risky behaviour whilst others do not. The model is constructed of four elements of determination. These include: perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits and perceived barriers. It is hypothesized that before an individual decides to partake in activities such as illegal drug use, they go through a process of evaluation whereby these contributing factors are considered before reaching a conclusion. This model has the propensity to explain why some individuals are willing to use illicit drugs, whilst others are not- as each individual person has a different set of beliefs and influential circumstances.

Therefore, it is necessary to understand and address matters such as predisposing factors, societal influences and individual differences, as they are crucial in the comprehension and treatment of drug related issues. By acknowledging the effects social groups, individual circumstances and cultural practices have on an one’s drug using habits, we can address these issues and tailor specific programs to ensure everyone is presented with services to benefit their unique set of circumstances. This is of utmost importance, as social inequalities need to be resolved before the gap widens and certain subpopulations are left behind.

Analysis of the Artefact and Your Own Learning Reflections. I believe my chosen artefact represents my topic well, as it reflects the ineffective nature of prohibition in response to Australia’s illegal drug problem. Just as America was forced to adopt a new approach in response to the failed alcohol prohibition in the early 1900’s, there is evidence to suggest the illegality of illicit drugs in Australia has little effect on consumption. Consequently, new approaches need to be considered to ensure the health and future of drug-using individuals and their communities. I strongly support alternate ideas, as I believe prohibition to be an outdated, ineffective method of controlling the situation. I have seen first hand what lengths people will go to obtain drugs- whether it be legal or not, and do not believe driving drugs into the underground is a suitable option.

By exploring options such as decriminalization and furthering harm reduction strategies similar to the NSP, we can at least do our best to ensure the safety and preserve the future of drug users. Having investigated and researched this topic, I have learnt that abstinence- whilst ideal, is not a realistic solution to apply to the whole population. Additionally, I have been able to identify the subpopulations that are more susceptible to drug use due to social and cultural differences and consider what could be done to close the gap. As a result of what I have learnt, I believe I will be able to keep an open-minded approach when dealing with topics that don’t conform to my beliefs, as I am able to understand the different situations people are experiencing and realise that there is not necessarily one approach that is suitable for everyone.

References Andrews, J. A., Tildesley, E., Hops, H., & Li, F. (2002). The influence of peers on young adult substance use. //Health Psychology//, //21//(4), 349-357. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.21.4.349

Australian Government, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). //2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report.// Retrieved from []

Commonwealth of Australia. (1998). Public opinion towards drug policies in Australia, 1985-95. Retrieved from []

Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). Return of Investment in Needle and Syringe Programs in Australia. Retrieved from []

Commonwealth of Australia. (2004). //Module 5: Young people, society and AOD: Facilitator’s guide.// Retrieved from []

Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Needle and Syringe Programs: a review of the evidence. Retrieved from []

Commonwealth of Australia. (2008). Harm Minimisation. Retrieved from []

Donnelly, N., Hall, W., & Christie, P. (1995). The effects of partial decriminalisation on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993. //Australian journal of public health//, //19//(3), 281-287. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1995.tb00444.x

Faris, S. (2012). Recognising forms of self medication. Retrieved from [|http://www.healthline.com/health/depression/forms-self-medication#2]

McKirnan, D. J., & Peterson, P. L. (1989). Alcohol and drug use among homosexual men and women: Epidemiology and population characteristics. //Addictive Behaviors//, //14//(5), 545-553. Retrieved from []

Queensland Health. (2013). Illicit Drug Court Diversion Program. Retrieved from []

Reflections:

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/%27Just+Do+It%27+-+the+play+on+words+of+the+globalized+fashion+industry

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/A+Few+Reasons+Why-+Transgender+Rights+and+the+Human+Rights+Argument