Illicit+Drug+Use-+Who+Are+the+Real+Criminals

The chosen artefact is an image that identifies the realities of the current drug minimisation strategies. The laws aim to reduce harm faced by the large populations of drug consumers. However, the history of drug legislation has proven costly and statistics show no reduction of illicit drug use, yet laws are continuously enforced. The artefact is hence representative of the irony between increased prohibition laws and the increasing trends of illicit drug use and addiction.
 * Letitia Britt** **n8318166** **Tutor: Michelle Newcomb**

The prohibition laws and enforcement that are observed in regards to illicit drug use, there is a growing social acceptance of what is termed recreational drug use (Caiata-Zufferey, 2012). The growing culture and normalisation of recreational drug use poses a number of serious public health issues. For one, educating particularly young populations about the dangers of addiction are made more difficult to convey (Nicholson, Duncan & White, 2002). Moreover, there becomes a false perception of self-control, individuals reporting daily use as a mere choice, rather then acknowledging the evident addiction (Piazza & Deroche-Gamonet, 2013). Additionally, more dangerous and riskier instances of use are seen in regards to administration and choice of illicit drugs (Berridge, 2005; Lee & Levounis, 2008). The following paper hence aims to advocate for public health to focus on the recreational drug culture and alternative methods of drug choice caused through prohibition. An individualistic perspective suggests addiction as distinctive choice and therefore supports criminalised consequence or jail time. In 2011 and 2012 alone, up to ninety thousand illicit-drug related arrests were made (Australian Crime Commission, ACC, 2013). The current review aims to highlight the need for education and treatment to prevent crime, re-offence and the increased health risk of addiction.
 * Core Public Health Issue **

Research into the mentality behind the normalisation of recreational drug use is important. It allows effective methods in decreasing both the addiction to and use of illicit drugs and aims to inform current drug law systems. It is thus imperative to recognise the physiological, psychological and social issues involved in recreational use and the potential addiction that may follow. This allows insight into more effective interventions to lower drug use and its dangerous effects. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011) the highest risk age groups, or evidently most populous users correspond to those aged 18 to 19 years at 25.1% and 20 to 29 year olds at 27.5%. Those aged 18 to 29 therefore account for up to 1.4 million Australians, representing a significant population for intervention focus (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). Moreover, Howat (2010) reiterates the importance of this issue through the significant death toll of 1,038 people in 2001 due to illicit drug use.
 * Literature Review **

// Drug Addiction- Physiological, Social, Psychological Influence // Addiction is commonly identified through tolerance and withdrawals, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Tolerance refers to the need for an increased dose to provide the desired effect. In terms of physiological effects, the dopaminergic or reward system of the brain is affected during illicit substance administration (Bozarth, 1986). Although stimulants and opiates show different physiological effect, needing differential treatments ( Badiani, Belin, Epstein, Calu, & Shaham, 2011 ), both drug classifications increase the dopamine in the systems nucleus accumbens (Wise, 2004). Addiction is more complicated then simply enforcing zero tolerance or abstinence expectancy. With indications of increased association between drug administration, environmental cues and pharmacological dose expectancy, addiction is strictly multifaceted (Siegel, 2005). One of the most common social issues involved in illicit drug use is peer pressure. A qualitative study of 95 young adults in Germany highlights the core prevalence of normalisation and resultant peer pressure in this particular demographic (Pilkington, 2006). Primarily the data suggested an incongruent trend of responsibility, where addiction was described but not acknowledged by individuals. While the author had set out to explore cultural contexts of German drug use, it was identified that drug administration was better described as peer-based. Hence, finding provided applicable contexts to Australian trends of use. Peer-based drug use is also prevalent in Australia; encouragement from peers exhibiting increased instances of risk during decision-making. Lee and Levounis (2008) interviewed 17 participants for their use of the highly lethal drug, gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB). Similar to popular illicit substances such as cannabis (AIHW, 2011), incentives to use GHB include increased levels of dopamine (Vayer Ehrhardt, Gobaille, Mandel & Maitre, 1988). However, due to the sensitive dosage of GHB, overdose is more likely, consequences as dangerous as death. Despite such reputations, many participants reported use due to the recommendation of others (Lee & Levounis, 2008). There are presently two significant points in relation to public health risks evident. Firstly, with need for more extensive sample populations, Lee and Levounis (2008) demonstrated an average age of 30 among their population. This age bracket suggests that those susceptible to peer pressure are not limited to adolescents or young adults. Furthermore, a number of participants reported self-made chemical combinations while another reported possession from previous legal purchases. With such a small window for safe administration, these reports highlight the need or consideration of quality control services as a means of harm minimisation. In conjunction with criminal consequence, such methods are evaluated as more effective then the current measures (RTI International, 2013). The harsh nature of drug addiction is that users are commonly aware of the dangers involved in their habits. It becomes a matter of educating individuals to acknowledge that addiction is a condition in need of treatment, and the system to acknowledge that punishment will not fix the core issue. Digiusto and Treloar (2007) depicted a distinct difference between the perceptions of treatment going drug users (n= 492) and non-treatment attending addicts (n= 193). More specifically, treatment-going individuals admitted to the conflict where drugs provided the fun desired, but additionally created problems. Such cognitions should therefore be utilised when advocating for treatment, aiming to overcome the habit of addiction. When such conflicts are acknowledged, it is evident that addiction contains both physiological and psychological components. Physiological withdrawals vary depending on the drug of choice. Stimulant abstinence causes symptoms such as psychomotor retardation, insomnia and irresistible cravings after a four-day period. Opiate withdrawals conversely peek at 40 hours following last use, these symptoms including chronic anxiety, loss of heat, convulsions and vomiting (West & Gossop, 1994). These withdrawals show debilitating effects on both cognitive awareness and mental capacity interfering with the individual’s ability to act rationally (Karasaki, Fraser, Moore & Dietze, 2013). Karasaki et al. (2013) conducted qualitative interviews with addiction health professionals whom similarly identified the psychological trauma and stigmatisation that leads to drug abuse. In this sense, a system of punishment and diagnostic labeling reinforces the concept of otherness, representing an initial risk factor involved in original drug administration. Such cycles are seen amongst professions such as street-workers, where severe withdrawals lead to increased work and hence judgment, in order to continue the illicit substance abuse. Cregan, Kulik and Salinger (2013) found such cycles indicative of low job satisfaction and significant psychological vulnerability amongst an Australian population of 107 sex workers. Fortunately, Australia has adopted a number of harm minimisation approach’s including the needle exchange programs aimed at minimising the public health risk of HIV/AIDS (Australian Government, 2013). These programs are seen to acknowledge the difficulty of banned drug use and rather aim to provide safer means of use and education to those who utilize the services (Spooner & Hetherington, 2004). However, there remains governmental minority opinions of harm minimisation as illicit drug encouragement rather then eradication as a zero tolerance view adopts (Mendes, 2008).

The prohibition of drugs has been an ongoing effort to reduce the harmful effects of illicit drugs. By studying trends of drug use and setting lawful standards, the government aims to monitor and control the growing issue around illicit drug supply and accessibility (Hall & Deganhardt, 2009). One major health risk created by this approach is the alternative and somewhat dangerous sources that individuals are compelled to seek for illicit substances. In the instance of Lee and Levounis (2008), participants had purchased substances from a range of sources including the Internet, drug dealers and close friends. Moreover the history of drug use illustrates that stringent focus on fighting particular illicit drugs, merely fuels the increased use of an alternative choice of drug (Jiggens, 2005). The current cultural artifact effectively illustrates this concept. Although the motives of such laws continue to develop and evolve, the nature of drug addiction has remained. It is a physiological reaction that causes not only negative effects on the individual using, but also threatens the greater public through heightened drug-related crime (Nordstrom & Williams, 2012). The law objectively treats addiction as a criminal activity. Research yet suggests its chemical origins to demand customised treatment, focusing on these physiological and psychological dependencies (RTI International, 2013). With abrupt abstinence addicts are faced with severe withdrawals (West & Gossop, 1994). Although withdrawals may pass during prison time, if psychological factors of addiction are not overcome, re-offence is likely; providing little evidence in support for stringent drug laws (Douglas & McDonald, 2012). Once offenders are released, relapse may occur because of repeated exposure to prior conditioned environmental associations and life stressors that are not resolved during jail time (Badiani et al., 2011; Hogarth, Balleine, Corbit & Killcross, 2013). In 1998 alone, there was an estimated seven hundred and twenty million dollars spent on drug law enforcement (Jiggens, 2005). High public costing’s, evidence of re-offence, and alternative drug choice and modes of access following criminal time, indicates the system insufficient. The current measures precisely fail to fulfill two of Australia’s three strategic pillars: to reduce both the supply and demand of drugs (Douglas & McDonald, 2012). While the third pillar of harm reduction has been a focus of recent governmental strategies (Mendes, 2008; Mostyn, Gibbon & Cowdery, 2012), public health sectors must increase this focus as an alternative to the individual punishment of drug addiction. The distinction between drug encouragement (Mendes, 2008) and effective control and treatment of drug use (RTI International, 2013) through decriminalization is arguable. However, a public and political acknowledgement of current inefficiency is necessary. Statistics within Australia21’s report, //The Prohibition of Illicit Drugs is Killing and Criminalising Our Children and We Are All Letting it Happen// show globalized increase of up to 35 percent in opioid, cocaine and cannabis use (Douglas & McDonald, 2012). This threat to public health calls for increased advocacy for the deliberate treatment of the psychological and physiological struggles that individuals involved in the current drug culture face. Represented through research and the cultural artifact, both peer-based trends and the prohibition of drugs have combined among other elements to create and maintain the dangerous underground access and use of illicit drugs (Caiata-Zufferey, 2012; Jiggens, 2005; Pilkington, 2006). Treating drug addiction as merely a criminal offence, fails to acknowledge the invaluable need for psychological and physical treatment. Piazza and Deroche-Gamonet (2013) regard such treatment necessary to prevent those serving criminal time from re-offending. Rather then adopting such caution around the need for individualised treatment and harm reduction, the law enforcement system alternatively and expensively fuels the dangerous and uncontrollable drug culture (Jiggens; Hall & Deganhardt, 2009). Without appropriate treatment, exposure to repeated drug use additionally increases the risk of further pathologies such as anxiety disorders, which may exacerbate illicit substance abuse (Breiter et al., 1997).
 * Cultural, Social and Artifact Analysis **

Through extensive research on the topic of drug use and the influence of law and policy, I have realised that drug policy is not extensively evident through the media. Prior to engaging in this topic I was aware of the broad war against drugs. Now I feel far more informed and realise the importance of facilitating others learning. It is not merely blaming the individual for their use as I had done in the past with my sibling, who makes this topic high in personal significance. I now have more empathy and realise that it is necessary to target the peer-based culture that actually encourages people to engage in illicit drug use. We must therefore from here work to influence policy, acknowledging the difficulties of the individuals facing the problems of illicit drug use, working with them and not against them to minimise the use of dangerous illicit substances.
 * Personal Reflection **


 * Reflections**

https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/page/messages/No+Consent+for+Sex+is+Rape

https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/page/messages/A+%27Firey%27+Awakening

References Australian Bureau of statistics (n.d.). //Population clock//. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?opendocument

Australian Crime Commission (ACC). (2013). //Illicit drug data report 2011-2012//. Received from http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/illicit-drug-data-report/illicit-drug-data-report-2011-12

Australian Government (2013). //Department of Health and Ageing - Illicit drugs//. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubhlth-strateg-drugs-illicit-index.htm

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). //2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report// (Drug statistics series no. 25. Cat. No. PHE 145.) Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737421314

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). //Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders// (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Badiani, A., Belin, D., Epstein, D., Calu, D., & Shaham, Y. (2011). Opiate versus psychostimulant addiction: The differences do matter. //Nature Reviews of Neuroscience, 12//(11), 685-700. doi: 10.1038/nrn3104

Berridge, V. (2005). Illicit drugs, infectious disease and public health: A historical perspective. //Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases & Medical Microbiology//, //16//(3), 193–196.

Bozarth, M. & Wise, R. (1985). Toxicity associated with long-term intravenous heroin and cocaine self-administration in the rat. //Journal of American Medical Association,// //258//**,** 81–83.

Breiter, H. C. //et al.// Acute effects of cocaine on human brain activity and emotion. //Neuron,// //19//,591–611 (1997).

Caiata-Zufferey, M. (2012). From danger to risk: Categorising and valuing recreational heroin and cocaine use. Health, Risk & Society, 14(5), 427-443. doi:10.1080/13698575.2012.691466

Cregan, C., Kulik, C., & Salinger, D. (2013). The effects of age and drug dependency on the emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction of adult streetworkers in Australia. //Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42//(5), 851-861. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0049-x

Digiusto, E., & Treloar, C. (2007). Equity of access to treatment, and barriers to treatment for illicit drug use in Australia. Addiction, 102(6), 958-969. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01842.x

Douglas, B. & McDonald, D. (2012) //The Prohibition of Illicit Drugs is Killing and Criminalising Our Children and We Are All Letting It Happen,// Report of a high level Australia21 Roundtable, Australia21, Canberra http://www.australia21.org.au/ our_research/illicit_drugs_download.html#a /

Hall, W. & Degenhardt, L. (2009). The Australian illicit drug reporting system: Monitoring trends in illicit drug availability, use and drug-related harm in Australia 1996-2006. //Contemporary Drug Problems, 36//(3), 643-661,377-378. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/233170991?accountid=13380

Hogarth, L., Balleine, B. W., Corbit, L. H., & Killcross, S. (2013). Associative learning mechanisms underpinning the transition from recreational drug use to addiction. Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences, 1282(1), 12-24. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06768.x

Howat, P. (2010). Policy at a glance Illicit Drug Problems Policy. //Public Health Association of Australia//. Retrieved from http://http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/101216_Illicit%20Drugs%20Problems%20Policy.pdf//

// Jiggens, J. (2005) The cost of drug prohibition in Australia. In //Social Change in the 21st Century//, Carseldine, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3442/1/3442.pdf//

// Karasaki, M., Fraser, S., Moore, D., & Dietze, P. (2013). The place of volition in addiction: Differing approaches and their implications for policy and service provision //. Drug And Alcohol Review, 32//(2), 195-204. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00501.x//

// Lee, S. J., & Levounis, P. (2008). Gamma hydroxybutyrate: An ethnographic study of recreational use and abuse. //Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40//(3), 245-253.//

// Mendes, P. (2008). Zero tolerance or international conspiracy: A critical analysis of the house of representatives inquiry into illicit drugs. //Social Alternatives, 27//(2), 51-55. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213964830?accountid=13380//

// Mostyn, B., Gibbon, H. & Cowdery, N. (2012). The criminalisation of drugs and the search for alternative approaches. //Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24//(2), 261-272.//

// Nicholson, T., Duncan, D. & White, J. (2002). Is recreational drug use normal?. //Journal of substance use//,// 7//(3), 116-123.//

// Nordstrom, B. & Williams, A. (2012). Drug treatments in criminal justice settings. //Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 35//, 375–391. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2012.03.005//

// Piazza, P., & Deroche-Gamonet, V. (2013). A multistep general theory of transition to addiction //. Psychopharmacology, 229//(3), 387-413. doi:10.1007/s00213-013-3224-4//

// Pilkington, H. (2006). ‘For us it is normal’: Exploring the ‘Recreational’ Use of heroin in Russian youth cultural practice. //Journal Of Communist Studies & Transition Politics, 22//(1), 24-53. doi:10.1080/1352327050050845//

// RTI International. (2013). //Replacing prison terms with drug abuse treatment could save billions in criminal justice costs. //Retrieved from http://www.newswise.com/articles/study-replacing-prison-terms-with-drug-abuse-treatment-could-save-billions-in-criminal-justice-costs//

// Siegel, S. (2005). Drug tolerance, drug addiction and drug anticipation. //Current Directions in Psychological Science//,// 14//(6), 296-300.//

// Spooner, C. & Hetherington, K. (2004). Social determinants of drug use. //National drug and alcohol research centre, university of NSW, Sydney//,// 228//. Retrieved from ISBN: 0733422446//

// Vayer, P., Ehrhardt J., Gobaille, S., Mandel, P. & Maitre, M. (1988). Gamma-hydroxybutyrate distribution and turnover rates in discrete brain regions of the rat. //Neurochemistry International, 12//, 53-9.//

// West, R., & Gossop, M. (1994). Overview: A comparison of withdrawal symptoms from different drug classes. //Addiction, 89//(11), 1483-1489.//

// Wise, R. (2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. //Nature Review of Neuroscience, 5//,483–494.