Treatment+vs.+Incarceration.+An+evaluation+of+legislation,+criminal+activity+and+the+effect+of+moral+panic+surrounding+illicit+drugs.

Matthew Denman N8908893 Michelle Newcomb

=The Artefact =



The artefact is an image that depicts a prison cell with rotating doors and is a visual representation of recidivism. Statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (2007) suggest that about two in every three individuals in custody in Australia have previously been incarcerated. The literature has identified that recidivism may occur due to a wide range of factors (Andrews D, Bonta J, & Wormith J, 2006, p. 46). Some of these risk factors include poor education and employment histories, mental illness and bad physical health, as well as drug and alcohol misuse (Bonta J, 1998).

=The Public Health Issue =

The rotating doors of the criminal justice system are a result of a criminal justice system which is fuelled by the moral panic about drug use. This has manufactured a judicial environment that is more concerned with eliminating the threat of moral deviance via punishment by incarceration rather than addressing, on an individual level, the social, psychiatric, educational, economic and other possible associated lifestyle issues and needs that may have contributed to either the drug use or crime. This evidently can be seen through the large number of reoffending individuals. As Andrews (2006, p. 23) explains, the need to address the needs of each individual specifically is crucial if the end result of treatment is to be positive, in turn lowering the risk of recidivism.

**Literature Review**

To understand the full extent of this public health issue we must first explore some key statistics and literature surrounding this issue. These statistics include quantitative data which identify the exact number of individuals who are incarcerated or charged with an offence as well as the qualitative data detailing why the crime was committed.

The Drug Use Monitoring in Australia project seeks to measure drug use among individuals who have been recently apprehended by police (Jason Payne & Josh Sweeney, 2012, p. 3). It highlights issues such as the relationship between illict drug use and crime. Data collected from the project in 2009 highlighted that; Two in every three offenders (66%) detained by the police tested positive to at least one drug (Gaffney et al. 2010) and almost half (47%) of those who had been charged with an offence in the preceding 12 months reported having taken drugs at the time of that prior offending (Jason Payne and Antonette Gaffney, 2012). These statistics highlight that there is a relationship between drug use and criminal activity. However it would be ignorant to say that drug use alone causes crime.

Data collected from this project measures apprehensions, charges or arrests and include offences that arise attention of police. This methodology has its limitations. Police data may underestimate offending due to the fact that they include only offences that are reported officially or come to the attention of the police. They may also overestimate offending because not all offenders apprehended by the police are in fact guilty of their alleged offences (AIC, 2007).

 In another survey on adult male prisoners in 2001, the AIC’s Drug Use Careers of Offenders (DUCO) study found that 62 percent of adult male prisoners reported being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs at the time of the offence (Makkai & Payne 2003, p. 6). Again this data suggests that the drug-crime relationship must be addressed due to the prevalence of intoxication during the time of criminal activity. Therefore incarceration without treatment will not address the underlying issue, this in turn will not decrease the rate of recidivism.

These statistics do not illustrate the full scope of the relationship between drugs and crime as Makkai and Temple (2008) suggest, to precisely measure the relationship between illicit drugs and criminal activity as well as the national impact of this issue, data on the human experience must be collected and interpreted. This data became available through the DUMA program in 2009. This is the first study in Australia to provide specific attribution rates by drug and attribution type. These graphs provide information on the self-reported perceived nature of the drug– crime relationship (Jason Payne and Antonette Gaffney, 2012). Table 1 displays the prevalence of drug use by specific drug type within 30 days of the offence and whether or not the individual attributes the offence to the drug use. Table 2 displays by drug type whether the individual attributed the crime because they needed the money to buy the drug (economic), whether they attributed the offence to intoxicated due to the drug use (pharmacological) and whether they were hanging out for the drug (psychopharmacological). Though each attribution may be a result of economic, pharmacological and psychopharmacological factors collectively. This type of information is important to look at when considering an individual’s treatment program because as Andrews (2006) suggests if a treatment program isn't specifically designed to meet an individual’s needs it will be less effective and possibly do harm.

DUMA GRAPHS


<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is important to note that this study used self-reported data. Therefore the data’s quality and reliability are only as good as the offender’s capacity and willingness to recall past events. It is also subject to the offender’s understanding of the instruments used to obtain information on offending behaviour, for example a survey. These are key considerations in the use and interpretation of the self-report methodology (AIC, 2007).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">The importance of collecting data relating to this health issue is expressed through the World Health Organisations international guidelines for estimating the costs of substance abuse (Single E C. D., 2003). The guidelines state that this data provides information and baseline estimates for policy prioritisation,which in turn enables specific priority areas to be identified based on the comparative community costs. The theory behind this is that these policies will be more effective due to the fact that they are tailored towards identified areas of need. The guidelines also propose that areas where the costs cannot be accurately calculated, more appropriate data and research methodologies will be needed (Single E C. D., 2003). Although these guidelines are important the interpretation and application by our government will determine the impact of proposed strategies and polices that are developed.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5;">**Why individuals are draw to criminal activity?**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">When proposing the need for change towards treatment it is important to understand why some individuals have higher risks of engaging in criminal activity then others. To date social scientists have consistently identified eight criminogenic risk factors, referred to as the “central eight” (Breaking the cycle, 2010). These risk factors are:


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Antisocial behaviour, such as criminal activity, juvenile delinquency.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Antisocial personality pattern, such as low self-control, aggression.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Antisocial cognition, such as attitudes, values, or identity supportive of crime.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Antisocial associates, such as friends or family members supportive of crime.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Family/marital factors, such as domestic conflict and lack of monitoring.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">School/work factors, such as low school/work performance/satisfaction.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Leisure/recreation factors, such as low involvement or satisfaction with prosocial activities.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Substance abuse, such as abuse alcohol or drugs. These risk factors were also identified by Andrews (2006).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">The need to address these criminogenic risk factors is based on the needs principle which helps determine how to target interventions with the goal of reducing criminal risk, this in turn will decrease the rates of recidivism (Andrews D, Bonta J, & Wormith J, 2006). Along with the needs principle, Andrews (2006) suggests that the utilisation of the risk principle in delivering treatment is necessary for effective programs. The risk principle refers to the delivery and ‘intensity’ of a program based on an individual's likelihood of committing a crime (Andrews D &. D., 2006). This means that a person who is identified as having a high risk for criminal activity would benefit from a more holistic and intensive program targeting criminogenic needs than a person who is at low risk. Andrews (2006) research also suggests that if individual’s classified as low-risk receive a high level of service, it may actually increase criminal risk. An individual’s classification will be based on measurements from criminal risk screening instruments such as Level of Service Inventory-Revised which was developed by Don Andrews and James Bonta. The LSI-r is a risk/needs assessment for offender treatment planning and placement. The importance of this screening process has been expressed by authority figures in Australia who have dealt with and seen the consequences of the ignorant operation known as punishment by incarceration.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">‘’If a person is imprisoned with a drug addiction, a massive drug debt for which he is receiving threats from a dealer, untreated psychiatric and psychological problems, and has children the subject of a care and protection order, then there is no way these problems will disappear simply because that person is placed in custody—nor will the problems diminish on that person’s release.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Drug Court recognises that drug addiction is a health issue and that the taking of drugs and related crime cannot stop until all of the causes are addressed”. A quote from Western Australia Drug Court Magistrate Julie Wager from her speech given to the Eighth International Criminal Law Congress (Wager, 2011). What Julie Wager is suggesting, speaking on behalf of the Drug Court, is that an alternative approach to what has been normative prison practise is needed to appropriately address this issue (Wager, 2011).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The implementation of drug courts in Australia was based on the theory that they would provide a number of potential benefits in reducing the rates of recidivism and ending the harmful cycle of incarceration (Makkai, 2003). The two major benefits listed by Makkai (2003, p. 7) were the diversion of people from the prison custodial environment and the rehabilitation of offenders. By not addressing these harms Makkai (2003, p. 7) suggests that the cycle continues to the next generation. An evaluation of the first three years of the South Australian drug court program showed that 45.6% of individuals who completed the program were not apprehended for a new event during the participation compared to only 22.2% of individuals who terminated participation (Skrzypiec, 2005). In terms of serious criminal offences, 25% and 32.1% were recorded respectively for completers of the program compared to terminates. The median time of first apprehension for a criminal event was 311 days for completers and 91 days for terminates of the program (Skrzypiec, 2005). Drug court program completers also had lower incidence of apprehension to a prisoner comparison group after two years, 68% compared to 79%. Completers of the program were also less likely to record a drug related criminal offence to the prison comparison group, 5% compared to 13%. Although some of the percentage margins between completers of the program and the prison control group were not greatly significant, Emma Ziersch and Jayne Marshall (2012) stat that these statistics predominantly reflect the outcomes of the Drug Court prior to the introduction of the more intensive treatment program in 2008. Therefore it would be beneficial to re-examine the program and evaluate the impact and outcomes of the intensive treatment program. Though overall as Makkai (2003, p. 8) states, the implementation of the drug court program has been positive with backing by all members involved.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5;">**Economic evaluation**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Taxpayers fund the operations of law enforcement, courts, correctional facilities and the majority of criminal justice-related programs. Therefore an economic cost-benefit analysis comparison between the utilisation of prison or alternatives (treatment) should be a key consideration in the policymaking process. If we first evaluate the cost of Australian prisons between the period of 2010–11 more than $3 billion was expended. The breakdown of finance was split between $2.3 billion in net operating expenditure and $0.8 billion in capital costs (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, 2012). The estimated annual average cost per prisoner per day in 2012–13 is $315. In comparison the estimated cost per residential treatment client (including operating and capital costs) ranged from $8608 to $33 822 a year. This translates into a total average cost per client per day ranging between $204.5 and $284.9 (ANCD, 2012). If we were working on the assumption that 100% of individuals who were engaged in either prison or treatment for a year radically reformed and committed no future offences thus not contributing to further expenses of recidivism the cheapest pathway would be treatment, with a potential maximum savings of $110.5. Though we know that from multiple studies, including the South Australian drug court program that recidivism rates of incarcerated individuals compared to treatment participates is a higher, up to 11% (Marshall, 2012). Therefore the most cost effective option for taxpayers and the government would be treatment as opposed to incarceration.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em; line-height: 1.5;">**Drug prohibition vs Drug liberalisation**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Prohibition is defined by Oxford dictionary (2013) as the action of forbidding something, especially through law. Generally drug prohibition relates to legislation that enables the criminal justice system, through law enforcement to charge an individual with an offence relating to either drug use, possession, distribution/selling or manufacturing of a substance classified as illegal. Liberalisation, in terms of drug legislation, often interchanged with decriminalisation is defined by Oxford Dictionary (2013) as the action of removing or loosening restrictions. An example of countries with drug prohibition include the United States of America and Australia (with some exceptions). A country which is known for its drug decriminalisation policies is Portugal. If we examine some comparative statistics we see that the United States of America has the highest incarceration rates in the world today, with 6.98 million offenders engaged in the adult correctional systems in 2011 (Glaze, 2011). This equates to 743 individuals per 100,000 of the national population (Glaze, 2011). The current number of individuals engaged in the criminal justice system is about five times higher compared to 1980, with only 139 individuals per 100,000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006). An alarming statistic from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (2013) indicates that 50.1% of inmates are serving time due to a drug offence. In 2003 the United States spent $185 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities (Hughes, 2006). This is a 418% increase in expenditures since 1982 ($36 billion in expenditures). One hypothesis that can explain this rise in expenditure is the country’s approach of dealing with illicit drugs. Though the dramatic increase in expenditure and incarceration rates from the period of 1975-2011 hasn’t caused a significant decrease in the lifetime prevalence rate of illicit drug use. In fact 87% of graduates from the high school class of 1979 reported trying any illicit drug compared to 72% of graduates from the high school class of 2000 (Lloyd D. Johnston, 2012). In comparison to Johnston’s monitoring the future survey, the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (1995) shows that there was actually an increase in drug use among the entire population from 33.3% in 1979 to 37.2% in 1993. This survey suggests that the rigorous prohibition may have in fact increased illicit drug use (National Institute of Justice, 1995). Although such dramatic increases in funds towards the criminal justice system may be partly contributed towards fighting illicit drugs, if the United States government was truly concerned with decreasing the costs of substance abuse they would spend more time and resources focusing on tobacco and alcohol. As Rehm J (2009) research reveals the total national burden of cost for alcohol is $285 billion and for tobacco $193 billion. Comparatively the burden for illicit drugs is $193 billion (National Drug Intelligence Center, 2010). The national cost to health care is $11 billion for illicit drugs (National Drug Intelligence Center, 2010), $30 billion for alcohol and $96 billon for tobacco (Rehm J, 2009). The data and information listed above relating to the United States of America is one example of how prohibition does not work effectively in theory. So what about drug decriminalisation?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">On July 1, 2001, Portugal’s new drug law took effect. These laws decriminalise all drugs, including cocaine and heroin (Greenwald, 2009). This meant that drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself were no longer prohibited. If violations do occur however they are deemed to be an administrative violations and are no longer the concern of the criminal justice system. Drug trafficking is still considered a criminal offense (Greenwald, 2009). If an individual does violate the law, under Article 11(1), if the offender is deemed to be a non-addicted consumer and has no prior offences the proceedings will be suspended and no sanction imposed. Under Article 11(3) the proceeding will also be suspended if an individual deemed to be an addict or has a prior record agrees to participate in treatment. The effect of this is expressed by Stevens (2007) report detailing Portuguese law enforcement informant’s perception on the new laws “We are supportive of the reform, particularly because we perceive decriminalization and referral to education and treatment as offering a better response to drug users than under the previous legislative approach…we have embraced the more preventative role for drug users”. The immediate effect of this policy can be seen through a dramatic drop in individuals charged with a drug offence (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal, 2006).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This then lead to a sudden decrease in individuals being sentenced, thus lowering the incarceration rate and prison population (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal, 2007. p. 16).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If Australia and the United States of America had a similar drop in incarceration rate it would allow the government to spend money elsewhere, for example education. Although one of the biggest concerns about drug decriminalisation is that it would increase the prevalence of drug use compared to other countries with firmer prohibition, this has not occurred in Portugal. In fact Portugal has one of the lowest rates of cannabis and cocaine use among other European countries (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal, 2007).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Portugal is a good study for the rest of the world to look at. As Will Rogers once said “Why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as well as prohibition did, in five years Americans would be the smartest race of people on Earth”.

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cultural and Social Analysis =

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Moral panic has caused the public to hold ill-informed perceptions and ideas of the relationship between drug use and crime thus creating an environment that has enabled political motives and certain interest groups to seem as if their actions are warranted due to public outcry. Moral Panic defined by the Oxford Dictionary (2013) is an instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society. As Goode (2009) states moral panic can come about in a particular society at a particular time by the public, the media, law enforcement, politicians and action groups who may express intense concern over a condition, phenomenon, issue, behaviour, or would-be threat and that if a sober assessment of the evidence took place it would reveal, that the concern is not needed? The assembly of these concerns equating into moral panic can either be seen as grassroots driven or elitist-engineered (Goode, 2009). One of the most influential phenomena and movement surrounding moral panic and drugs is the American “war on drugs”. The war on drugs ad defined by Bullington (1990) is a term most commonly applied for the campaign of prohibition and military intervention, with the aim to reduce the illegal drug trade. As Reinarm and Levine (1997) suggest, such movements as the ‘war on drugs’ are a product of the dominance, interests, and efforts of the ruling elite, who can manipulate public fears and concerns to achieve their own goal. One theory put forth by French and Manzanarez (2004) is that the first step towards total prohibition was the Marijuana Transfer Tax Act of 1937. They further state that it was an attempt to destroy the hemp industry, largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family (French & Manzanárez, 2004). The theory to why they wanted to destroy the hemp industry is because of the invention of the decorticator which would result in hemp being the favoured plant as opposed to timber due to its economic turnover (French & Manzanárez, 2004). Randolph Hearst’s extensive timber holdings and Andrew Mellon’s, (at the time was the United States Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America) investment into DuPont's new synthetic fibre would be under threat. This analyses of why the war on drugs manifested is part of the American prohibition history, which contributed partly to the current regime against illicit drugs.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;">In 1970, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was passed, this laid the frameworks for the National Drug Control Policy. This categorises controlled substances based on their medicinal use and potential for addiction. Assistant professor of criminal justice at Appalachian State University, Matthew Robinson, suggests that the National Drug Control Policy was backed up by overstated fictional statistics (Matthew B. Robinson, 2007). The result of this was an increase in government propaganda and exaggerated anecdotal stories, this in turn leads to community fear (Bruce Carruth, 2006 ). This is not a mass conspiracy theory on how the public are sheep to the shepherd of the elite. Instead it is an explanation of how governance have the ability to shape societies ideas, beliefs and concerns unknowingly and at times create phenomenon’s that might otherwise not take off if rational assessment of an issue took place. However I am not suggesting that individuals who make up society do not have their own thought process or ability to make up their mind. I am suggesting though that if the individual is constantly hearing the views of authority figures in government through the media and particular interest groups that this has a crucial role in the formation of what individuals believe to be their personal view on an ‘issue’. Furthermore if only one side of the issue is presented this bias will most likely unknowingly be unnoticed by the public. The judicial environment of punishment by incarceration not only affects the offenders that are incarcerated or the families of these individuals (Makkai, 2003). It also affects the greater community by reaching into government taxes that could be spent elsewhere (Marshall, 2012). Therefore the importance of increased awareness and knowledge on this issue is needed if this health issue is to be addressed effectively (Payne J., 2007). It should be a concern for all members of society. We are not only wasting our money by not addressing the real issue behind the drug-crime relationship but also hindering our society’s progress. The need for equity should be put forth due to the fact that some people will need more help than others (Guerrero, 2007). Instead of dealing with this problem once an offence is committed more should be done to prevent the need for these individuals to partake in criminal activity. As the graphs, literature and experts relieved, these crimes are not committed simply because the offenders are bad people. It is a complex health issue and serving time rarely will fix anything (Wager, 2011). The need for a multidisciplinary approach is warranted. Recent movement and trails towards dealing with this issue via treatment shows that we are now on the right path towards successfully practise. Though there is still a large majority of individuals who have been sent on the path to multiple rides on the rotating door of the criminal justice system.

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Reflection and Analysis of the Artefact =

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The rotating doors are a good visual representation of how this public health issue has been addressed. To me the photo also symbolises the failure the criminal justice system offers to society and the individual when dealing with the issue of drug using offenders. It holds individuals and once time is up they are released. None of their underlying issues, including drug use are addressed. It is just a pointless waste of money and a great injustices to some individuals. Although a percentage of individuals are in correctional services because they do pose a real threat to the public, there are also individuals that unfortunately end up behind bars due to the limited opportunities they have been given in life. This assessment has given me the opportunity to look into a public health issue that interests me. It has also provided a platform to which my research and point of view can be seen. In regards to the affect of this assessment on my future learning and thought process it has further backed up my belief that to understand an issue, a great amount of time must be spent researching and looking into multiple viewpoints.

Review of other wikis
[] []

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Reference list =


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Andrews D, &. D. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Andrews D, B. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, Vol 52, 7-27.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Andrews, D. B. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. . Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bonta J, L. M. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. . Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bruce Carruth, T. C. (2006 ). Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole. New York: Routledge.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bullington, B., & Block, A. A. (1990). A Trojan horse: Anti-communism and the war on drugs. Crime, Law and Social Change, Volume 14, Issue 1, 39–55.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Incarceration Rate 1980–2005. Washinton DC: U.S. Deptartment of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Commission, P. (2012). Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. Report on Government Services 2012. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">dictionary, O. (2013, October 23). Oxford dictionary. Retrieved from Oxford dictionaries: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Drugs, A. N. (2012). An economic analysis for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders prison vs residential treatment. Canberra: Australian National Council on Drugs.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2013). Quick Facts; Types of Offenses. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">French, L., & Manzanárez, M. (2004). NAFTA & neocolonialism: comparative criminal, human & social justice. Lanham: University Press of America.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gaffney A, J. W. (2010). Drug use monitoring in Australia: 2008 annual report on drug use among police detainees. Monitoring report no. 9. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gaffney, J. P. (2012). How much crime is drug or alcohol related? Self-reported attributions of police detainees. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice No. 439 . Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Glaze, L. E. (2011). Correctional Population in the United States, 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics..
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Goode, E. a.-Y. (2009). Moral panics : the social construction of deviance. In E. a.-Y. Goode, Chapter 3 : Three Theories of the Moral Panic (pp. 51-72). Malden,: Wiley-Blackwell.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Greenwald, G. (2009). Drug Decriminialisation in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Guerrero, A. a. (2007). Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships, 2nd edition. Sage Publications.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hughes, K. A. (2006). Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal. (2006). The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency, 2005 Annual Report. Lisboa: General Directorate for Intervention on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal. (2007). The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency, 2006 Annual Report . Lisboa: General Directorate for Intervention on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">J, M. T. ( 2008. ). Drugs and crime: Counting the cost: Estimates of the social costs of drug abuse in Australia in 2005–2006. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series. . Canberra: Australian Institue of Criminolgy.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">J, M. T. (2003). Drugs and crime: A study of incarcerated male offenders. Research and public policy series no. 52. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Justice, D. o. (2011). Breaking the cycle: Tasmania Corrections Plan 2010-2020. . Hobart: Department of Justice, Corrective Services.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lloyd D. Johnston, P. M. (2012). Monitoring the future, National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2011. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University Michigan.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Makkai, T. &. (2003). Final Report on the South East Queensland Drug Court, Technical and Background Paper Series, no. 6. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Marshall, E. Z. (2012). The South Australian Drug Court: A recidivism study . Adelaide: Government of South Australia Attorney-General's Department..
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Matthew B. Robinson, M. B. (2007). Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. SUNY Press.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">National Drug Intelligence Center. (2010). National Threat Assessment: The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">National Institute of Justice. (1995). Fact Sheet: Drug Use Trends. Rockville: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Payne, J. (2007). Recidivism in Australia: findings and future research: Research and Public Policy Series No. 80. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Payne, J. a. (2012). How much crime is drug or alcohol related? Se-reported attributions of police detainees. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 439, . Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Payne, J. S. (2012). Drug use monitoring in Australia: 2009–10 report on drug use among police detainees. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Rehm J, M. C. (2009). Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. The Lancet Vol. 373, Issue 9682,, 2223-2233.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Single E, C. D. (2003). International guidelines for estimating the costs of substance abuse, 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Single E, C. D. (2003). International guidelines for estimating the costs of substance abuse, 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Skrzypiec, G. (2005). Drug Court. An evaluation of the first three years of operation. Adelaide: Government of South Australia. Attorney-General's Department.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Stevens, C. H. (2007). The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal Briefing Paper no. 14. Beckley Foundation.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wager, J. (2011). Eighth International Criminal Law Congress. Melbourne.