I'd+be+better+off+with+a+brain+tumor

Danielle Cave n8860301 Tutor: Judith Meiklejohn Criminisation vs Treatment for drug users. I'd be better off with a brain tumor. [|www.drugfree.org/]

**Cultural artefact:**

The above image is from a campaign by Partnership for a Drug Free America to target treatment for drug users, rather than just criminalisation. It states: ‘I’d be better off with a brain tumor. That way you wouldn’t put off getting me the help I need. You’d understand my condition is only going to get worse, and not to hope it will go away by itself. If I had a brain tumor you’d understand I need treatment, not indifference’. Drug addiction is a disease, when you treat it as such, people can get better. Partnership for a Drug Free America (drugfree.org) is a non-profit organisation that aims to solve the problem of teen substance abuse. Around 90% of addictions will start during the teenage years and when you can either prevent or get help for these people, there is a chance to prevent crime and save lives. The aim of this campaign was to start changing the way that the public perceive addiction and instead of punishing and looking at it negativity, be able to empathise with the sufferer. ** The public health issue central to the analysis: ** Drug use is commonly frowned upon in Australia society and seen as very much a right wing problem because drug users have the choice to follow a particular pathway and deserve to suffer the consequences. The socioeconomic factors affecting the person and the nature of addiction are scarcely considered in this conclusion. The easy fix is prohibiting the use of many drugs, and the people involved. Instead of providing compulsory treatment options for offenders, we choose to only criminalize them. The government is not providing a long term plan to benefit people who are addicted to drugs, but instead fooling the public into thinking the problem is under their control.


 * Literature Review: **

Research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has shown in a 2012 study that in the twelve months prior to their prison sentence, 70% of entrants had used at least one type of illicit drug. This number is slightly higher in males than females. 55% of that 70% had used more than one type of illicit drug in the previous twelve months, and a shocking 11% had used more than six different types of drugs in that time period. (AIHW, 2012).

This table is from a Study carried out by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (AIHW, 2012). The major government action against illicit drug use is to imprison or fine offenders, rather than to also include treatment options. Although there are many studies that prove that drug addiction is the cause of most drug related crime and treatment has proven results in stopping further criminal acts. This includes studies from the National Institute on Drug Abuse which have shown that treatment cuts drug abuse by half, reduces criminal activity by 80% and reduces arrests by 64% (NIDA,2006). The National Institute on Drug Abuse is also promoting drug abuse treatment in criminal justice populations to improve the health of the individuals affected and also the wider communities (NIDA, 2006).

By imprisoning, we aren’t stopping this criminal industry, or even helping these people overcome their addiction. Instead we are putting them in jail and fining them for crimes that they will most likely repeat in the future. This particularly applies to the recurrence of another drug related crime if no form of treatment has been received. For example, from a study carried out by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime, Statistics and Research of just under 4,000 drug driving offenders; 35.3% were convicted for committing a new crime within 24 months and 19.7% also had previous drug offences (Taussig &Jones, 2012). With figures this high it really does raise the question on if the government is actually preventing drug related crime and overlooking the role addiction plays in this issue.

Addiction is a chronic issue in which the person affected will compulsively seek and take the substance in which they are addicted to, even if the consequences of doing so are not positive. At first an addictive substance will supply the user with a sense of euphoria which can relieve stress, anxiety or unhappiness. With long term use there will be permanent changes to the central nervous system resulting in an addiction to the feeling brought on by the substance, these include; physical dependence, sensitization, craving and lastly relapse (Camí & Farré, 2003).

Amongst criminal populations there is a large amount of drug users, and misusers, therefore a link between drug use, addiction and crime can be established. Although there is no set pattern for the connection, research has shown that the socioeconomic factors of some individuals will make them more likely to use drugs. This leads to an addiction and finally to crimes being committed in order to maintain that addiction. This relationship is very complex, and varies from individual to individual (Gossop, Marsden, Stewart & Rolfe, 2000). Studies have shown that there is a definite increase in the amount of crime committed during addiction, compared with before or after the addiction. In 2000, 753 people were recruited to the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS) to show the relationship between acquisitive crime and drug misuse. The study involved the participation of the people in a follow-up, one year prior to receiving treatment. The follow-up showed that there was a decrease in crime to only one third of the 753 people (from half), and a reduction by half for criminal involvement (Gossop, et al., 2000).

The numbers of crime offenders also increases if they have an addiction to two or more different types of drugs. These offenders have the higher reoffending rates and also lower rates of retention. This type of drug use which is commonly referred to as poly drug use is a huge target area in terms of treatment and understanding how best to devise strategies to help this issue. This is particularly more difficult because of the diversity of influencing factors that lead to poly drug use. Studies from the Australian Institute of Criminology have released data from 2011 that shows that the more drugs that the offender is using, the more income they are receiving both illegally and from drug dealing (AIC, 2011). These numbers also increase in terms of drug attributions to current offence up until the user of four or more drugs where the number lowers again. This clearly shows that the worse an addiction is, or the addiction to more substances will increase criminal activity and the likelihood of reoffending and being part of the criminal justice system.

Data from the Australian Institute of Crimonolgy (AIC, 2011). To decrease the burden that drug users have on the criminal justice system, treatment facilities and plans need to be more widely put in place and should be a mandatory part of a prison sentence. Research shows the trend that treatment lowers the rate of reoffending. More research also needs to be put in place to determine the risk factors and influencing factors for single and poly drug use and the addictions they cause.


 * Cultural and Social Analysis: **

The main reason that there is little to no change in a policy of treatment and criminal justice is due to moral panic. Politicians like to describe the prohibition of drugs by using the term ‘war’ or more commonly the ‘war against drugs’, by doing so they send a message to the public to fear drugs and their culture. An example of moral panic is the ‘Meth Scare’ in rural parts of the United States of America where the media portrayed white, underclass, rural, and poor people as being a threat to society and using a simple stereotype to blow their argument out of proportion (Armstrong, 2007). Moral panic is created by the government so people will fear that drugs are taking over our country and that harsh laws need to be in place in order to maintain control. Many sociologists have interpreted the use of moral panic by leaders, as to hide the true underlying problems from the public to avoid rebellion. If people believe that criminalizing drug use will stop the issues surrounding it, then they will never question doing so, or even contemplate better options such as treatment programs. They will just continue to believe that the government is solving the problem at hand.

This particularly applies to the group of people with higher socioeconomical status and who have never experienced the destruction that addiction can have. They look down at the people whose lives have been destroyed by drug use, and look only at what has resulted (eg. crime). Some contributing factors for drug use include; income, wealth and parental education, all three contributing to smoking, alcohol and marijuana use in adolescents (Patrick, Wightman, Schoeni & Schulenberg, 2012). 73% of people aged 18–24 years that are currently in prison have used drugs within the last twelve months, this number declines at 44+ years old to only 44% (AIHW, 2012). This shows a huge difference in the number of people who are using drugs depending on their age group, and the large majority of those being young to middle aged.

Drug addiction does not just affect the user; it affects society as a whole. The crime and destruction of addiction can sweep through entire communities and doesn’t leave a pleasant aftermath. Steps need to be taken to help people deal with their addictions in order to reduce crime rates (Taussig &Jones, 2012). Moral panic is unnecessary and is falsely portraying to the public a concept surrounding drug use. We need to help the people who need our help. The government needs to help these people to stop both themselves and everyone around them being effected when they do not need to be. Public health should ideally focus on treatment, before crimes are committed and also to ensure they will not be repeated in the future. Teaming treatment with the criminal justice system will ensure this (NIDA, 2006).




 * Artefact Analysis and Personal Learning Reflection: **

My chosen artifact represents the fight to help free many desperate people from their addictions. It represents standing up for treatment options and not just criminalizing drug users. It clearly shows the viewer another way of looking at the 'war on drugs', and fighting to cure the disease they bring on. Using treatment options rather than only punishing what that disease can do. It shows that the government can twist this viewpoint to support its own actions and that is not necessarily the best option. From the creation of this wiki and throughout this semester I have learnt to appreciate the many different viewpoints that there are for every topic and to learn how to use proper scientific knowledge and data to reach my conclusions. Although I already had doubts that criminalization could really cure or solve a drug addiction to therefore prevent future crime, I now know that is most likely never the case. Partnership for a Drug Free America has perfected the approach to solve this issue, with one simple solution. Treatment. Drug addiction is a disease, when you treat it as such, people can get better!


 * References: **

Armstrong, E. (2007). Healing, and the Expansion or Repression of Human Consciousness: Part II Moral Panic over Meth. //Taylor & Francis, 10//(4), 427-442. Retrieved from [|http://www.tandfonline.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080%2F10282580701677519#.UnIOL_lmim4]

Australian Institute of Crimonology. (2011). Poly drug use among police detainees. Retrieved from []

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). Illicit Drug use. Retrieved from []

Camí, J and Farré, M. (2003). Drug addiction. //The New England Journal of Medicine, 349//(10), 975-86. Retrieved from []

Gossop, M, Marsden, J, Stewart, D and Rolfe, A. (2000). Reductions in acquisitive crime and drug use after treatment of addiction problems: 1-year follow-up outcomes. Retrieved from []

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006). Treatment for Drug Abusers in the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from []

Patrick, M, Wightman, P, Schoeni, R and Schulenberg, J. (2012). Socioeconomic status and substance use among young adults: a comparison across constructs and drugs. //J Stud Alcohol Drugs, 73//(5), 772-82. Retrieved from []

Taussig, I and Jones, C. (2012). Penalties and reconviction risk among offenders convicted of drug driving. Retrieved from [|http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB79.pdf/$file/BB79.p]


 * Learning engagement and reflection: **

1) https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/The+Price+of+Love

2) https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/A+%27Firey%27+Awakening