Addicts+are+tied+and+bound+whilst+society+just+stands+and+stares

N8860866
Tutor: Abbey Diaz

==== The artifact chosen is an art piece by a user named ‘iancjw’ on deviant art. It depicts a large man bound and tied on his knees in a dark room in a vulnerable position. He is bound with little clothing on and he displays an ashamed or withdrawn posture. Surrounding the man are various substances that are considered addictive, such as cigarettes and empty alcohol bottles. To the bottom of the picture, on the floor, there is a shadow ‘looming’ over the man. ====

** Public health issue: **
==== Drug addiction, or any kind of addiction, is not something a person wants. Yet out of 6 different categories of drugs, Australia is one of the highest users of 5 of those categories (UNODC, 2012). On top of that, it was estimated that in 2004-2005 the estimated cost of drug addiction was $8.2 billion in Australia alone (Collins & Lapsley, 2008). Because of high usage globally and the evolution of the different nations justice systems, users of illicit drugs are heavily criminalised and punished throughout many nations. ====

==== However there is growing trend that disagree with the current systems. Many countries and states around the world are taking a different approach to dealing with addiction. Places such as the Netherlands, Colorado state and Washington state (US), Mexico, and Brazil are all examples of countries that have taken a different approach in the hopes that it will work better than the current system does. ==== ==== From this change in opinion on how to approach addiction, and in particular illegal drug use, there has been many debates created in key areas of treatment, punishment, and even the essence of the problem itself. ====

** Review of literature: **
==== There have been many debates over whether or not addiction can be classified as a ‘disease’ (something that a person cannot control) or a ‘choice’ (‘mind over matter’). It has been assumed that the latter was in fact the correct assumption, and from this our system of dealing with people who are addicted has been built around this perspective (Lozoff). We told these people that what they are doing is wrong and locked them away with very little help. We taught from a young age that it is the individuals fault for being addicted. ====

==== Now we are left with a system that entraps addicts and provides them with very little opportunities of escape, even though it would be preferable to rehabilitate them into society (Cartwright, 1998). ==== ==== Now that it is clear that the current system isn’t working how it would hope to be, a change in how people are viewing the system is occurring; and from this debates on how to help these people, what methods should be used, and most importantly, what is the nature of addiction, have been created. Today we are closer to the creation of a system that supports the people within it, instead of punishing them for doing something that some would argue is out of their control. ====

// Harm Minimization vs. Abstinence: //
==== One of the debates that has been created from this change relates to how people should be rehabilitated, wether abstinence or harm minimisation is the best approach. This debate is complicated in its nature, like most other debates; however both sides have almost equally strong strengths and limitations. ====

==== The abstinence side argues that the best treatment is to help the people to stop using the substances altogether (Thompson). While this sounds simple enough, the limitation of this argument lies within its practicality. The people who are addicted, are attached to their respective substances, and to help a person completely remove a substance from their lives would involve great challenges (O'Hara, 2010).However it has been proven that abstinence repairs brain function greatly within a matter of months (Wang, et al., 2004). The main bargaining chip used by people on this side is that it aims to remove the diseases that are transferred by blood when addicts share implements (needles, syringes etc.). ====

==== People on the other side of this debate, those who support harm minimisation, aim to reduce any harm that can befall users. They do this by creating systems that teach users how to safely use needles and that provide clean instruments to the users (Australian Government Department Of Health And Ageing, 2005). Compared to the abstinence argument, this approach would be much more practical in its ability to implement and maintain (Australian Government Department Of Health And Ageing, 2005). ====

// Prison vs Treatment: //
==== Traditionally the law treats people who are addicts as wrong and sends them to prison to be locked away. They are kept away from society, and placed in an environment with other people who are similar to themselves in that they will do a great deal to obtain their next ‘high’. This results in their affliction with addiction not being resolved at minimum (Casavant & Collin, 2001). Since the growing consensus that our old system doesn’t work how we would hope it would, there has been debate over whether prison is the right course of action for treating these people. In this debate there are those who believe that for treatment to be successful the addicts need to be locked away and practically forced into rehabilitation programs. Others believe that for rehabilitation to be successful it needs to be voluntary and as such they believe addicts should not be locked away. Thankfully both sides agree that a level of rehabilitation is necessary, how much and in which manner is the matter being debated. ====

==== The side that supports the furthering of the prison system is of the strong belief that most addicts aren’t going to voluntarily agree to participate in rehabilitation programs. However by locking them away into a sub-society that is filled with other people, who each are as ‘unwilling’ as the next to participate in rehabilitation, cannot be beneficial to the individual. Another limitation of this argument is that while the level of successful rehabilitation on the inside of the prison might be high, the risk of a person relapsing and being caught again could be argued to be high as they would no longer have the support and resources of the prison to ensure they maintain a clean lifestyle (Mitchell). ====

==== Those who push the side of rehabilitation programs over incarceration believe that most addicts can be helped without the need of locking them away. They support the implementation of ‘drug courts’, places where people can enter treatment programs instead of being imprisoned (Australian Institute Of Criminology, 2010). But again, there are limitations, the main one being the cost and overhaul required to change the current system, let alone people’s opinions. However this being said, it has been shown to be more cost effective in some areas to change the system (McCollister, et al., 2003). On top of this there are similar risks to the other sides’ limitation of successful rehabilitation into the greater society (Mitchell). Whilst it is easy to rehabilitate inside the system, wether prison or treatment, once the support and resources leave it can be difficult for some to adjust. ====

// Nature of addiction: //
==== The last major debate that has arisen from this change in opinion of the system is in a way the cause of the disappointing current system. The nature of addiction: is it a disease or is it something that can be controlled by the individual and therefore is the individuals’ responsibility. Both sides have interesting points, but in recent years it is becoming very much a one sided debate, with more and more scientific evidence showing that addiction could be classified as a disease, and it is certainly not controlled by the individuals consciousness. ====

==== Those who support the belief that addiction isn’t controlled and cannot be stopped by the individual have scientific evidence and sound theories to support their case. The biological influence of the reward centre and how addictive substances interact with is; and the element of genetic predisposition in people which can create a more ‘influential’ reward centre (Lende & Smith, 2002). Environmental influences such as physical access to certain substances increasing dramatically in the last 2 centauries with nowhere near enough time for our bodies (reward centre in particular) to catch up (Jêdrzejczak, 2005). Not to mention the developmental influences, for instance the socioeconomic position of a person during their development can have a drastic influence on that persons future addiction to certain substances (Galea & Vlahov, 2002). ====

** Cultural and Social analysis: **
==== These debates have arisen from the dissatisfaction of how the current system treats people with addiction. From this society has begun to realise that the responsibility to act on an issue that affects lives, lies in the hands of the people who want change, not those who are elected. ====

==== Max Weber wrote about authority in his piece (Mommsen, 2011). In that he discussed three ideal types of authority: Traditional, Charismatic, and Rational-legal. He discussed the difference between these three types of authority: traditional being a person who has knowledge or position in a sub-culture of society (teacher, lieutenant); charismatic authority pertains to a person who can influence people; and a person with rational-legal authority is one who understands the law or the bureaucracy. Each of these types of authority are present in todays’ society, just as they were in the late 1800’s when Weber was alive. However there fails to be a type of authority that is dedicated to the preservation of life and the commitment to change when needed. All of the types of authority present in todays world are centred on the continuation of the current system, a system that has been proven to be bent and unequal. This blockade to change can be seen in many other issues such as the environment, marriage equality, dirty energy dependence, and animal rights, just to name a few. The system in which we live is built around the continuation of itself without change. Thankfully, society is beginning to realise that what is, isn’t what should be. ====

** Analysis of Artefact & Learning Reflections: **
==== The artefact shows a man trapped, surrounded by substances that are addictive. His body language shows shame and possible fear, perhaps from the looming figures seen at the bottom of the picture. I believe the literal story of the picture is one of illegal crime and this man is being ‘dealt with’ by those in illegal operations. However, as with many stimuli, there is another story here. I believe it depicts a man suffering from an addiction, and how society treats this man. He is bound, helpless, by his addiction which surrounds him; his life is dark, and he feels trapped. Society and the system which is meant to be there for these people and help them, stands over him and watches as he slowly gives up hope. This is what society is beginning to see and what they disapprove of. The system is locked in and is difficult to change, but people are realising what is happening and are now beginning to want change. ====

==== From this assessment I have learnt that things are not what we perceive them to be. I believe this issue is one of many that are being hidden to those who do not look, and as such the majority of the population do not see what is happening. ====

**Engagement And Reflection:** 1. http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/Fight+Global+Warming+with+Your+Knife+and+Fork 2. http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/Questioning+The+Meatrix

**References:**

 * ==== Australian Government Department Of Health And Ageing. (2005). // Needle And Syringe Programs: A Review Of The Evidence. // Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/83AAED699516CE2DCA257BF0001E7255/$File/evid.pdf ====
 * ==== Australian Institute Of Criminology. (2010, 09 6). // Australian Responses To Illicit Drugs: Drug Courts // . Retrieved from Australian Institute Of Criminology: http://www.aic.gov.au/criminal_justice_system/courts/specialist/drugcourts.html ====
 * ==== Cartwright, W. S. (1998). Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectivness Analysis of Drug Abuse Treatment Services. // Evaluation Review //, 609-636. doi:10.1177/0193841X9802200503 ====
 * ==== Casavant, L., & Collin, C. (2001). // Illegal Drug Use And Crime: A Complex Relashionship. //====
 * ==== Collins, D. J., & Lapsley, H. M. (2008). // The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in 2004/05. // Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf ====
 * ==== Galea, S., & Vlahov, D. (2002). Social determinants and the health of drug users: socioeconomic status, homelessness, and incarceration. // Public Health Reports //, 135-145. ====
 * ==== Jêdrzejczak, M. (2005). Family and Environmental Factors of Drug Addiction among Young Recruits. // Military Medicine //, 688-690. ====
 * ==== Lende, D. H., & Smith, E. O. (2002). Evolution meets biopsychosociality: an analysis of addictive behavior. // Addiction //, 447-458. ====
 * ==== Lozoff, B. (n.d.). Seven Ways to Fix the Criminal Justice System. // New Renaissance, 5 // (3). ====
 * ==== McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Prendergast, M., Wexler, H., Sacks, S., & Hall, E. (2003). Is In-Prison Treatment Enough? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prison-Based Treatment and Aftercare Services for Substance-Abusing Offenders. // Law And Policy //, 63-82. ====
 * ==== Mitchell, O. (n.d.). Does Incarceration-based Drug Treatement Reduce Recidivism? // Journal Of Experimental Criminology // . ====
 * ==== Mommsen, W. J. (2011). // The Political And Social Theory Of Max Weber: Collected Essays. // Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. ====
 * ==== O'Hara, M. (2010, 09 1). // Is Abstinence The Best Policy For Addiction? // Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/01/abstinence-drug-rehabiliation-noreen-oliver-bac ====
 * ==== Thompson, G. (n.d.). // Abstinence Approaches to Addiction Treatment // . Retrieved from Canadian Harm Reduction Network: http://canadianharmreduction.com/node/281 ====
 * ==== UNODC. (2012). // World Drug Report 2012. // New York: United Nations Publications. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2012.html ====
 * ====Wang, G.-J., Volkow, N. D., Chang, L., Miller, E., Sedler, M., Hitzemann, R., . . . Fowler, J. S. (2004). Partial Recovery of Brain Metabolism in Methamphetamine Abusers After Protracted Abstinence. //Am J Psychiatry //, 242-248. ====