Do+Drugs.+GO+Jail.

Do Drugs. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not get $200. Duy Nguyen N8802572 Judith Meikejohn

Artefact
media type="custom" key="24293594" align="center"

The video explores the link between the increasing prison population of the United State of America and “the war on drugs” in the last few decades. The presenter concludes that the increase is because of drug prohibition and questions the harshness of the drug policy, the amount of money spent and whether the best treatment is to lock drug users in prison cells. Hence the underlying message is the effectiveness of drug prohibition.

Public Health Issues
The use of drugs creates a range of public health issues from the physical or mental effects to the spread of diseases via needle sharing. Although these effects are important to consider as public health issues, a more common issue that is commonly overlooked is the stigmatisation and discrimination experienced amoung drug users as a result of the criminal justice system. Stigmatisation causes the drug users to feel isolated, rejected by society and this may have a direct detrimental impact on mental and physical health (Ahern, Stuber & Galea, 2007). Research has shown that poor people experience additional stigmatization as they do not have social support from family, friends that a privileged person would have **(**Adamson & Todd, 2010). Stigmatisation also deter drug abusers from seeking help because of the fear of mistreat by health care providers and getting into trouble by the authorities (Ahern et al., 2007)

Literature Review
The debate of whether drug abuser should be incarcerated or not, is a popular topic for discussion among many scholars and experts since president Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971. The prohibition laws are meant to scare people away from drugs, however despite the severity of these laws, drug use and crimes still continue. Evidence has shown that over the last 20 years these policies have largely failed to fundamentally alter the scale and nature of the illegal drug market (Buchanan,2006). In Australia the last decade has seen an overall increase of illicit drug with cannabis being the popular choice of drug as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively. In fact the drug policies are counterproductive as it creates a black market for profitable drugs where organised crime flourish by exploiting the addicted who often resort to crimes to fuel their addiction (Weatherburn, 2001). Hence the reason why the drug policies will never be able to stop the prevalence of drugs use is because there is an incentive market for drug distribution. Spence (1997) describes the drug problem as a vicious cycle; “the response to drug crime is more incarceration and the response to more incarceration is more crime.” This statement is referring to the statistics that the majority of drug addicts released are back in jail for reoffending as they are not given proper treatment for their addiction. Drug addicts have significantly more recidivism rates than any other offenders (Bales, 2012). A study has found no evidence to suggest that imprisonment reduced or delay recidivism but actually offenders sentenced to prison failed more often and quickly than those placed on probation (Spohn & Holleran, 2002).

There have been many insightful literatures concerning the disadvantages of the harsh prohibition laws and the implication it has on society. Bush- Baskette (2000) looked at the social cost of incarcerating mothers and found that 70% of incarcerated women have children under the age of 18. These children that are left behind are emotional and psychological damaged and experience strong negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, grief and sadness which can lead verbal and physical aggression. Similarly Wildemen and Western (2010) looked at incarceration and its impacts on family and found that it negatively affects the imprisoned men, their romantic partners and children. The economical factor was the main reason for the distress as incarcerated men found it extremely difficult to obtain steady employment which lead to relation instability.

An issue that arises as a result from tough prohibition laws is overcrowding in prisons. America has the world’s largest prison system and half of all prisoners have mental health or drug problem due to inadequate medical care (Annas, 2012). The social problems associated with overcrowding are human right threats, violence, breakdown of order and impedes prisoner rehabilitation ( Garcia-Guerreo & Macro, 2012). Given the negative consequences of overcrowding there is pressure to reduce prison population however federal government are hesitant due to risks to public safety (Schuck, 2012).

Viable options to overcrowding are alternatives to incarceration which are a co-ordinate set of programs which let judges send criminal offenders for treatment instead of sentencing them to jail. These programs have low operation cost and hence can reduce the cost of prison (Porter, Lee & Lutz, 2011). An example of such programs are drug courts which have shown to reduce the number of drug addicts being incarcerated, decrease recidivism, save money in tax dollar, increase retention in substance abuse treatment and provide affordable treatment (Zaller, 2007). Drug courts are a balance between punitive and rehabilitative strategies by combining supervision models of justice with treatment with the aim of reducing drug use (Evans,2006).

Currently there a lot of literature regarding the decriminalising of drug as a lot of expert has opposed the punishing of drug addicts. A common misconception is that decriminalisation does not mean legalisation, drugs are still prohibited but the drug addict is provided with counselling rather than going through the criminal justice system (Haden, 2002). This allows the victim of drug; the addicts to receive help and the perpetrators; the suppliers and traffickers to be punished. Hence the main argument for decriminalisation drug is that it allows addicts to be treated as patients. Drug addiction should be considered a public health issue rather than a law offense, that is, it should be treated as a disease rather than a crime (Lancet, 2001). The illegality of illicit drugs makes it difficult for health professionals to intervene; drug addicts are less likely to disclose information and limits the ways health professionals can communicate with and influence drug users (Adamson & Todd, 2010) .It has been suggested that drug could be regulated and taxed similarly to tobacco and alcohol. The advantage of this is that the revenue generated could be used on education and rehabilitation programs (Chand & Califano, 2007). Educating children at an early age about drugs is the most effective method to oppose the drug problems; it provides children with the right tools to make intelligent and healthy choices (Chand & Califano, 2007).

Not everybody agrees with decriminalisation of drugs, (Califano Jr, 2007) suggest that more resources and energy should be allocated to research, prevention and treatment. He argues that if drugs were decriminalised they would be easier to obtain and hence the amount of drug use would increase. However his hypothesis is contradicted by a research looking at the effectiveness of decriminalisation in Portugal, they found that overall there was a decline in the number of drug user and also an increased in drug treatment program (Hughes, 2010).

Cultural and Social Analysis
This section explores the reason why the drug policies are tough on drug abusers by looking at a concept called ‘moral panic’. This concept defined by Cohen (1980) is:

“A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests”

Furthermore moral panic can be characterised by five key features (Goode and Yehuda, 1990)
 * Concern
 * reported conduct of event that sparks anxiery
 * Hostility
 * the perpetrator are protrayed as the enemy
 * Consensus
 * The Negative social is broad and unified
 * Disproptionality
 * The extent of conduct or threat is exaggerated
 * volatily
 * The panic emergers suddenly but can dissipate as quick

Cohen (1980) noted the moral panic surrounding youth pop culture groups: the Mods and Rockers in the 1960s which was caused by the media’s negative presentation: deviant, unruly and violent behaviour. However the seriousness of events were exaggerated and distorted; the number of young people involved, the nature of the violence committed, the amount of damage inflicted, and their impact on the community. In essence false stories were reported as true and this is an example of disproportionality.



A distinctive feature of moral panic is the irrational fear, panic and hatred within the community against a deviant group that does not fit into the norm of society. These groups are portrayed as the enemy and a threat to society which puts pressure on social control group to act. Lawson (2007) explained the powerful influence that the media has to shape public thinking which can cause significant social changes to be made before anyone has a chance to evaluate their impact. Similarly, in the context of the drug use, the media portrayed the drug problem in a very negative and often biased way to evoke fear, panic and terror. This puts pressure on the policy makers to make solutions that were often more ideological rather than scientific. This is evident in the history of the drug policies as the initial reaction, in response to the moral panic, was to incarcerate virtually everyone that looked stone or high. It was only after did they realise that these policies were expensive, creating many social issues and were ineffective in curbing drug use.



Analysis Of The Artefact and Personal Reflections
The artefact highlights some of the problems with drug prohibition policies which this report explored further into detail. The content of the artefact reinforced the message of the wiki: that the criminal justice system is too harsh on drug users and the drug policies creates more problem than they solve. It provided a good overview of the situated and gave me specific directions to further my knowledge about the topic. The artefact may seem to be biased against drug prohibition but after doing the literature review they do have a strong case for it.

This report has widened my knowledge and perspective about drug abuse and policies. I found the decriminalisation of drug a very interesting topic because I thought decriminalising drugs would increase the amount of drug used however the literature review suggest that the drug intake stayed relatively the same by the amount of people seeking help significantly increased. I can empathise with drug abusers in particular they stigmatisation they receive by society.

Reference
Adamson, S. J., & Todd, F. C. (2010). Drug use is a health issue. //The New Zealand Medical Journal, 123//(1327), 121.

Ahern, J., Stuber, J., & Galea, S. (2007). Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. //Drug and Alcohol// //Dependence, 88//(2-3), 188-196. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.014

Annas, G. J. (2012). America's plague of incarceration. //The Lancet, 379//(9814), 401-402. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60175-5

Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. //Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8//(1), 71-101. doi:10.1007/s11292-011-9139-3

Ben-Yehuda, N., Goode, E. (1990). //The politics and morality of deviance: Moral panics, drug abuse, deviant science, and reversed stigmatization//. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bush-Baskette, S. (2000). The war on drugs and the incarceration of mothers. //Journal of Drug Issues, 30//(4), 919-928.

Califano Jr, A,J. (2007). Should drugs be decriminalised? no. //BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 335//(7627), 967-967. doi:10.1136/bmj.39360.464016.AD

Chand, K & Califano, J. A. (2007). Should drugs be decriminalised? //British Medical Journal, 335//(7627), 966.

Cohen, S. (1980). //Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers.// Oxford: M. Robertson.

Evans, R.D. (2006) .Drug court: An effective alternative to incarceration. //Deviant Behavior, 27//(6), 569-590. doi:10.1080/01639620600887295

García-Guerrero, J., & Marco, A. (2012). Overcrowding in prisons and its impact on health. //Revista Española De Sanidad Penitenciaria, 14//(3), 106.

Haden,M. (2002). Illicit IV drugs: A public health approach. //Canadian Journal of Public Health, 93//(6), 431.

Hughes, C, E. (2010) What can we learn from the portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? //British Journal of Criminology, 50//(6), 999-1022. doi:10.1093/bjc/azq038

Porter, R., Lee, S., & Lutz, M. (2011). Balancing punishment and treatment: Alternatives to incarceration in new york city. //Federal Sentencing Reporter, 24//(1), 26-29. doi:10.1525/fsr.2011.24.1.26

Schuck, P. H. (2012). Deportation before incarceration. //Policy Review,// (171), 73.

Spencer, M. P. (1995). Sentencing drug offenders: The incarceration addiction.(the sentencing controversy: Punishment and policy in the war against drugs). //Villanova Law Review, 40//(2), 335.

Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2002). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. //Criminology, 40//(2), 329-358. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00959.x

The Lancet. (2001). Rethinking america's "war on drugs" as a public-health issue. //Lancet, 357//(9261), 971-971. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04242-2

Weatherburn, D. (2001). Has the war on drugs failed? //Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 33//(1), 15-21. doi:10.1080/00450610109410809

Wildeman, C., & Western, B. (2010). Incarceration in fragile families. //The Future of Children, 20//(2), 157-177. doi:10.1353/foc.2010.0006

Zaller, N. (2007). Drug court as an alternative to incarceration. //Medicine and Health, Rhode Island, 90//(5), 154.