Hit+Me

(Could not send email to change it for some reason) *Title edit - "If somebody has a drink problem, you help them. If somebody has a drug problem, you should help them." ‘The drugs don’t work, they just make it worse...’ Rebekka Martin Student No.: 08641285 Tutor: Abbey Diaz

media type="custom" key="24295146" align="center"

[]

This clip from the 10th of October 2013 depicts British businessman, Richard Branson, talking about the failed ‘War Against Drugs’. Due to his success with his business endeavours such as Virgin Group, Branson holds a critical opinion of the failed global ‘War on Drugs’, especially in what he regards to be excessive amounts of wasted money. Being a major, public critic of the current criminalisation methods of the drug laws, Branson has been preaching for a change to the drug strategy such as the introduction of more harm minimisation policies.

 NAME THE PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE
 While it is interesting to hear him address the issue of squandered finances in this clip, Branson also highlights the inconsistencies in our society between the treatment of alcohol users and illicit drug users. Illicit substance use is currently treated as a criminal problem despite the obvious health concerns while, contrastingly, those with alcohol related difficulties are treated as having a health problem. By continuing to treat substance use as a criminal problem, society is ignoring the fact that the militarized drug laws are not working and that ongoing substance use might be suggesting that the issue is more relevant than individuals striving for social anarchy.

 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Despite the different treatment styles of those affected by alcohol use and illicit drug use, there are similarities in the nature of alcoholism and illicit substance use that I have found. One example is the resemblance between the on-going ‘War on Drugs’ and the failed attempt at alcohol prohibition in America. Despite the harsh law enforcement aimed at prohibiting the production and sale of alcohol between 1919 and 1933, the public demands for alcohol were met by the criminal underground (Miron & Zwiebel, 1991). This period saw power and money flow into the American black market and the issue of alcohol become a criminal one (Miron & Zwiebel, 1991). Since the end of the American prohibition, alcohol has changed from a criminal problem to a health issue. In Australia we have programs aimed at helping alcohol dependent individuals regain control of their lives such as ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’. By helping these individuals with their ‘health problems’, we are enabling them to “become useful members of society again,” as Branson put it.

To bring this back to the problem of illicit drug use, the on-going ‘War on drugs’ is proving to be as effective as the American prohibition of alcohol. Substance users must turn to the black market to feed their habits, often using in risky ways that increase related harms such as needle sharing leading to spreading of blood borne virus’ (Wodak, 2012). These harms are only being exacerbated by the lack of treatment offered to drug users, who are instead being dealt with by the criminal justice system. So instead of helping these individuals turn their lives around and reintegrate back into society, the militaristic ‘War on drugs’ is perpetuating the drug problem by marginalising these members of society. Drug using individuals with a record of incarceration or a jail sentence often struggle to find jobs or further their education due to the stigma attached to substance use (Manderson, 1993). This, in turn, can lead the individual back to reuptake of the habit that earned them the record in the first place. This is supported in studies such as the 2010 National Dug Strategy Household Survey Report (2011) where it has been shown that groups such as the unemployed are more likely to use illicit substances than Australians who associate with any other ‘Labour force status’.



However, despite the ongoing failures of the criminal drug problem, harm minimisation strategies have been tackling the same drug issue from a health perspective more recently. Since being introduced in 1985, harm minimisation strategies have so far proven to be effective in the treatment of illicit substance users (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). These strategies can be split into three targeted catagories: Harm reduction, supply reduction and demand reduction (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). Demand reduction can be thought of as the first step, these strategies are aimed at non-drug users to prevent them from starting to use illicit substances (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). Examples of this can be seen in anti-drug advertisements and other media campaigns. Supply reduction strategies are directed at those who produce, supply and sell illicit drugs (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). This is done through the joint efforts of government regulation and law enforcement targeted at reducing the production and supply of illicit substances. While important, these strategies bear resemblance to policies used in the ‘War against Drugs’. What really differentiates the old militaristic approaches from the more recent strategies is the role of harm reduction policies. With an understanding that drug use in inevitable within society, harm reduction is directed toward drug using individuals and communities and aims to reduce the harms associated with substance use rather than trying to stop it altogether (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). Examples of this include the needle and syringe exchange programs, safe injecting rooms and drug diversion programs.



The introduction of drug diversion programs has been useful in reducing the social harms related to substance use. Drug diversion programs help to divert substance users away from the criminal justice system and into educational or assessment based programs in attempts to help the individual avoid criminal charges and receive treatment. This diversion can either be directed by a police officer involved in an incident with a drug user or later on by the courts, and is usually given to first time, minor offenders (Ogilvie & Willis, 2013). By diverting these low risk individuals away from the criminal justice system, it is hoped that they will be given some incentive to attend to their substance use and reintegrate back into society (Ogilvie & Willis, 2013). In this way, many minor offenders do not have to incur criminal charges for possession of smaller drug quantities. This strategy is particularly useful in breaking the cycle of the aforementioned issue of drug use and unemployment.

Health focused programs such as needle and syringe exchanges and safe injecting rooms have been criticized by misinformed members of the public for condoning the use of drugs. However, these programs are only concerned with reducing the health related harms of injecting-drug use by providing a safe environment and equipment for use. This ensures that the using individual has a clean environment and sterile equipment to use, that used paraphernalia is safely disposed of to prevent needle sharing and health information is provided to those who need it (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013). These safe injecting centres also have medically trained staff on hand in case of emergencies and often liaise with local law enforcers to ensure that they only enter these establishments in the case of emergencies and not to harvest criminal offenders (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013). This ensures that drug users are not scared away from the facilities, encouraging safer use to prevent harm to the using individuals as well as reducing the spread of blood borne virus’ such and HIV and hepatitis C. Since the introduction of needle and syringe programs, the annual rate of recorded HIV cases has been found to have decreased in areas that have provided these facilities (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002).

So much time, money and effort has been devoted to the drug problem, this alone suggests the importance of the issue (Wodak, 2012). With more people recognising the economical and social failings of the ‘War on drugs’ and the positive results from harm minimisation strategies, perhaps a greater amount of effort should be directed toward the latter. If we accept that we cannot stop drug use altogether and work, instead, to reduce the health harms for the individual and the social and economic costs to society then perhaps we might be able to replicate the small successes of current harm minimisation policies on a larger scale.



CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS
 So I’ve already touched on a subpopulation group that has been found to be more at risk of drug use than the rest of the Australian population and that is the unemployed. However, other at risk demographics include Indigenous Australians and Australians who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT). In 2010, 25% of Indigenous Australians were found to have recently used any illicit substance, almost twice as likely as the 14.2% of the non-Indigenous population (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). The most commonly used of these illicit substances by Indigenous Australians was found to be cannabis at 18.5%, compared to only 10% of the non-indigenous population (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). Likewise, 26% of GLBT Australians were found to have used cannabis in the 12 months prior to the same study in 2010, compared to only 10% of heterosexual Australians (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). Overall, this report found that 35.7% of the GLBT population had used any illicit substance in the 12 months prior to the study, significantly greater than the 13.9% of heterosexual Australians for the same time period (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).

Both of these high-risk subpopulations also share similarly significant differences from their non-Indigenous and heterosexual counterparts in terms of mental health (Berry & Crowe, 2009; Ritter, Matthew-Simmons & Carragher, 2012). This elevated psychological distress is often attributed to social factors such as ‘minority stress’ related to racial and sexual discrimination (Ritter, Matthew-Simmons & Carragher, 2012). Sometimes substance use leads to mental health disorders and sometimes people admit to using drugs to ‘self-medicate’ against pre-existing mental disorders such as anxiety and depression (Ritter, Matthew-Simmons & Carragher, 2012). This relationship between illicit substance use and mental health is a common one, referred to as co-morbidity. Co-morbidity refers to an individual as suffering from the interaction of two or more drug and/or mental health problems concurrently (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005). It is unclear as to the direction of this relationship (whether drug use leads to mental health problems or vice versa), or whether the two develop simultaneously due to the influence of a third factor (such as racial/sexual discrimination), but it has been agreed that the interaction of the two problems is complex and should be treated simultaneously for maximum efficiency (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005).

Research has shown that these subpopulations are at a greater risk of suffering from mental health and drug use problems. And it has been agreed by health professionals that these two issues should both be treated together to promote the health of the individual. Yet, it is still argued that drug use is a criminal act and that it should be dealt with thusly. This argument sympathises with individualist ideals of society where ‘everyone is for themselves’ and ‘those who can’t keep up, get left behind’. However, the drug problem goes beyond the individual with the spread of blood borne virus’, the enormous financial costs of law enforcement and the marginalisation of minor offenders. Due to this wider social impact, and considering that gender/sex and race/ethnicity are only two determinants of health, collectivist-aligned thinking should be applied to the drug problem.

 ANALYSIS OF THE ARTEFACT AND YOUR OWN LEARNING REFLECTIONS
 My artefact depicted the ‘War on drugs’ as being a failure for financial reasons and for treating drug use as a criminal problem instead of a health problem. This, coupled with Branson’s comment about the differences between how society treats someone with a drinking problem and an illicit drug problem, was the basis of my wiki. I believe that because both are essentially ‘drugs’ that they should both be dealt with as health problems despite the legality of the substance. Also, due to the common and complex interaction of mental health disorders and illicit substance use in particular groups, I believe that current militaristic methods are too general and outdated to effectively reduce the gap between these high-risk demographics and the rest of the Australian population. However, because harm minimisation strategies are mindful of the external factors that influence drug use such as psycho-social health and living standards, I believe that subpopulations such as Indigenous and GLBT Australians will serve to benefit from these newer, health based strategies.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">I have also learned that this topic is a strong issue for debate due to the misinformation surrounding drugs and the nature of drug use. This misinformation stems from the beginning of the ‘War on Drugs’ where exaggerated anti-drug propaganda helped indoctrinate anti-drug ideals in society to generate support for the aggressive government legislations (Jiggens, 2004). These demonised ideals regarding drugs aren’t necessarily without merit, indeed there are many harms related to drug use, however, the point to which these ‘facts’ have been exaggerated or misunderstood has negatively impacted the ability to effectively address the drug problem. Harm minimisation policies are proving to be effective, however, they are still not as widely used as they could be and this could be helped by re-educating the public as to the failings of the current system vs the positive outcomes of newer strategies.



<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Reflections:
<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">1. []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">2. []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">References:
<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Berry, S.L., & Crowe, T.P. (2009). A review of engagement of Indigenous Australians within mental health and substance abuse services. [Electronic Version]. //Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health//, //8//(1), 16-27. doi: 10.5172/jamh.8.1.16

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health and Aging. (2002). //Return on investment in needle and syringe programs in Australia: Summary report//. [Electronic version] Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health and Aging. (2004). //Module 5: Young people, society and AOD: Facilitator’s guide//. [Electronic version] Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2005). //National comorbidity initiative: A review of data collections relating to people with coexisting substance use and mental health disorders//. [Electronic version] Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). //2010 National drug strategy household survey report//. [Electronic version] Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health for Victoria. (2013). //Needle and Syringe Program (NSP)//. [Electronic version] Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Jiggens, J.L. (2004). Marijuana australiana: Cannabis use, popular culture and the Americanisation of drugs policy in Australia [Electronic version]. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Manderson, D. (1993). From Mr Sin to Mr Big. Australia: Oxford University Press.

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Miron, J.A., & Zwiebel, J. (1991) Alcohol consumption during prohibition. [Electronic version] //The American Economic Review, 81//(2), 242-247. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Ogilvie, J., & Willis, K. (2013). Police drug diversion in Australia. [Electronic version] National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Ritter, A., Matthew-Simmons, F., & Carragher, N. (2012). Prevalence of and interventions for mental health and alcohol and other drug problems amongst the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community: A review of the literature. [Electronic Version]. //Drug Policy Modelling Program, Monograph 23//. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Wodak, A.D. (2012) The need and direction for drug law reform in Australia. [Electronic version] //The Medical Journal of Australia//, //197//(6), 312-313. DOI: 10.5694/mja12.10959