If+marijuana+turns+you+into+a+loser,+then+it's+just+because+marijuana+got+there+first.+Like,+you+really+had+issues.

Student - Rebecca Dwyer No. 8799598 Tutor - Abbey Diaz “Here is my final point... About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography...  What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, or take into my body as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" -Bill Hicks



The presented artefact is a two dimensional image of polychrome and text. The language in the image expresses a sentiment that appears to be designed for the purpose of adjusting or at least, challenging societies ideas about the use of drugs. In guise of this statement, the background image is adroitly related to the context and atmosphere the author is attempting to convey. The artefact attempts to contextualize the expressed opinion on not just the drugs themselves, in addition overuse of the term, ‘abuse’. Drug use in modern society has a negative stigma adorned unto it. Such a taboo topic is almost refreshed in its exemplar once this image has been digested by the observer.

This chosen artefact reflects lightly on the perspective that drug addiction is not a disease, rather behaviour. This leads me to clarify, from academic inquest, that a plausible solution exists in countering the so called ‘drug wars’ that Australia has conducted. To begin, addiction, described as harmful over-consumption of a substance must be treated as a disease, and a behavioural disorder rather than a crime punishable and enforced by law. The drug alone does not cause addiction, it is generated by coalesce of the drug, the user, internal and external environment. Secondly, the terms defining prohibition and the motives behind it need to be reconsidered, as this drives the black market, other crimes and continues to stock the prisons and courts with offenders. (Kalant, 2009, p. 787 – 788) (Civil Liberties Australia, 2010, p. 1 – 3)

“The majority of users of illegal drugs do not become addicted”. (Commonwealth of Australia, 1989, p. 3. Legal drugs and prescription medications are far more deleterious than such which have been criminalised. (Commonwealth of Australia, 1989, p. 2). With these statements, one has to inquire why the social expenditure of illicit drug use has been estimated in Australia at $8.2 billion over a period of 12 months (2004 – 2005) (Douglas & McDonald, 2012, p. 14). and approximately 1.7 billion Australian dollars were spent fighting this drug war. Most alarming, the majority of this expenditure is not directly on public health in response to the illicit drug use, alternately on law enforcement. (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 2013, p. 2).

An alarmingly small margin of drug ‘addicts’ have been reported to be substance dependant, the percentage comfortably sitting at around 5.6%. (Foddy & Savulescu, 2006, p.5). The war on drugs was initially waged to reduce drug’s deviant harm on society, and through this method it has been justified. This war is now seen to target any drug use or possession with a zero tolerance, and ideally, this method of criminalising and removing users from society by imprisonment is not reducing economic harm. (Douglas & McDonald, 2012), (Anderson, 2009). A clearly chosen, defined enemy must be established to fight a war, or the soldiers will engage in any threat and not fight the real problematic target. (Kent, 2005).

The problematic cause is drug abuse, nor drug use, or subsequently the drug themselves. All substances, medications and illicit drugs, are completely harmless. That is, if you leave them sitting on a table like the tangible tools they are. A human being who has made the decision to ingest or consume an illicit drug as a behaviour, has the same potential to commit a crime or violate the law as someone who has consumed a legal drug, or as someone who is completely sober. The drug abuser, who consumes to support their addiction and avoid the withdrawal from dependence, may have started out as a recreational user, and unfortunately this is where the majority of societal problems from illicit drug use occur. (Fester, 2013 p.1).

Substance ‘abuse’ is observed as a societal phenomenon (Anderson, 2009) and this significance is accepted in drug policy debates, even if its relationship is not entirely understood. (Duff, 2007) In an observed study (Kalant, 2009, p.1), the method of drug administration is seen to be the problem, regardless of the drug used. Speaking in the nature of addiction, clients who received analgesic administration in a controlled environment by a qualified doctor felt relieved after the due course of prescription after the drugs had served their purpose. Clients who received the analgesics to take home and self-administer by injection, some reported they continued to use the drugs after prescription, and admitted they were aware it was deemed socially unacceptable. (Kalant, 2009, p.2)

Delving even deeper to the root of the problem, we must ask: ‘why do people self-administer drugs?’ Use is not compulsive, that would then be deemed dependence. Deemed a maladaptive coping skill rather than a productive one, drug use is generally seen as a maladaptive coping skill. (Anderson, 2009). How one copes with psychological distress greatly depends on how one practices embodiment. At a basic level, embodiment represents the mind, body and soul as one being, defined by practices and interactions in the social world. (Duff, 2006, p.510). Illicit drug use is believed to be experienced as an activity by embodiment, and is rejected by the norms of politics and most cultures and society. As much as we all believe and have this overwhelming sense of self to become our own individual, we behave in ways shaped and sculptured by society and merge into social trends subconsciously, because it makes our lives easier and more convenient. (Duff 2006, p.507). (Pickard, 2012, p.3).



Taking a look at Merton’s structural strain theory, it describes how society provides a fabric allowing culture to fathom goals into existence. When culture and society become unbalanced, it creates an environment that allows deviant behaviour, such as illicit drug use to fester. An inability to access these goals, or means to them such as unemployment or education are usually associated with low socioeconomic areas. These correlate with criminal activity according to the structural strain theory. (Andersen 2009). Merton proposed that if these processes that allow us to achieve our goals are blocked, human nature would allow us to seek another means for access. Normal, social acceptable means of getting things done may require a lot of persistence and strain, and low self-control or a disorganised personality can make one turn to criminal behaviours to provide for one’s self. (Andersen 2009).

Causes of strain have a tendency to exist externally to the individual. This is taking a macro or structural perspective, rather than micro, or agency. Micro level theories suggest causes to be internal, such as biological, genetic and psychologically occurring, as immediate drug related behaviours. Macro level theories suggest there are distal precursors, which are more sociological in nature. This is why we are focusing on strain theory, which supports sociological faults to be the main trigger in deviant behaviour. (Anderson, 2009)

General strain theory suggests that three variations of strain exist, and each, especially combined together, promote delinquency and deviation through negative emotions. These are a failure to reach or seemingly impossible goals which are valued, a removal of positive stimuli, and presentation of negative stimuli. This does not state that all individuals with applied strain will turn to deviant behaviours to cope, but rather those with poor support and coping skills. To the individual, the benefits and rewards must be perceived to outweigh the costs of engaging in the behaviour. (Carson, et al., 2008, 55-59)  Economic inequality, poverty, unemployment, partial education and social disorganisation, along with mental instability create the perfect aroma for strain and personal struggle. These factors are prevalent in all societies and countries, they fail to discriminate. Variables are healthy to the economy, but social and economic support is required to maintain a narrow gap, allowing each individual the ability to access the same goal and resources. Widening gaps follow trends of poor law enforcement and discrimination amongst minorities, especially partnering with low social and economic support. (Carson, et al., 2008, 55-59)  Labelling theory suggests that there is a heavy social stigma on unacceptable roles, such as a drug user or addict. When individuals label themselves, or associates label the individual with this stigma and role, it is more likely to aggravate the behaviour rather than reduce it. Most drug users do not accept these labels at first, and attempt to rebel against it or deny it. Unfortunately many people find labels so damaging to their self-esteem, they cannot resist them at all. (Duff, 2007)  Drug use by the individual and social interactions with other users can be interpreted as a role or ‘career’ in this particular society or ‘social group’. When the individual incorporated their drug use as part of their social projection or identity, the ‘self-fulfilling’ prophecy is born. Embodiment and having a defined identity is so embedded in the structure of an individual it can become almost impossible to redefine, and attempting to can create devastating psychological effects. For some, it could be considered more adverse to be removed from the drug society and abstain from use permanently. (Duff, 2007)  Placing these factors into context is at most disorganised and thrown into a perpetuating state of chaos, as it is not immediately articulated how forces of social change impact on the context of strain, as each social force is as unique as the beholder. Variations could include stable ones from biological sex, ethnicity and age, to relatively constant forces such as living arrangements, politics and income. Individuals will continue to gravitate towards delinquent behaviours such as drug use as long as their social forces and cultural structure have strain places upon them. Illicit drugs will continue to remain prevalent in society, as long as there is a market of consumers. Effective drug policy interventions need to be implemented within the contexts in which drug use occurs, and must account for specific, local differences occurring in social contexts and cultures. (Duff, 2007)

After writing out the wiki assessment, I am pretty dumbfounded at how much I have learnt about tackling the so called ‘war on drugs’ and why it is a social, economic, health and political issue. I have come to realise that my chosen artefact represents this topic better than I first came to realise. The phrase “A drug is an inanimate object, incapable of being abused” accurately represents why the war on drugs is not achieving and resolution, and shows how they fail to target the real enemy in this scenario. The true enemy – excuse me again, this is still the wrong approach – the true issue at hand which needs addressing, is the metal health problem which drove the user to drugs in the first place. An addict will remain an addict, and their addiction to drugs can only be replaced with another addiction.  The artefact holds a lot of personal meaning, as I must admit I too share those views. I have used tools in a way to end a means. I had always wanted to not give a fuck about anything. I viewed feelings as a weakness, annoying obstacles on my quest for total power over myself. And I finally didn't have to feel them anymore. But it slowly became obvious that there's a huge difference between not giving a fuck and not being able to give a fuck. Cognitively, you might know that different things are happening to you, but they don't feel very different. Which leads to horrible, soul-decaying boredom. And in the moment of miserable boredom, we reach for tools just to be able to feel something, anything again. Recreational drug users are not criminals, but desperate for release. <span style="color: #17375e; display: block; font-family: Mathilde; font-size: 34.6667px; text-align: center;">We are the conquerors, we are the conquered.

Reference List as presented: 1. Andersen, M.L. and Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

2. Carson, D., Sullivan, C., Cochran, J. & Lersch, K. (2008). General Strain Theory and the Relationship Between Early Victimisation and Drug Use. Journal of Deviant Behaviour, 30, 54- 88. doi: 10.1080/01639620802050023

3. Douglas, B. & McDonald, D. (2012). The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children and we are all letting it happen. Retrieved from the Australia 21 website http://www.australia21.org.au/our_research/illicit_drugs_download.html#a

4. Dr Kristine Klugman, Civil Liberties Australia, (Assn No. 04043). (2010). Development of the National Drug Strategy 2010 – 2015. Retrieved from http://www.cla.asn.au/News/development-of-the-national-drug/?zoom_highlight=national+drug+strategy

5. Duff, C. (2007). Towards a theory of drug use contexts: Space, embodiment and practice. Addiction Research and Theory, 15(5), 503 – 519. doi: 10.1080/16066350601165448

6. Fester, U 2013. Why we will never win the war on drugs. Retrieved from http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion.

7. Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, Commonwealth of Australia. (1989). Rethinking drug policy. Retrieved from the Parliament of Australia Senate website http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=report_register/bycomlist.asp?id=176

8. Kalant, H. (2009). What neurobiology cannot tell us about addiction. Addiction, 105(5), 780-789. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02739.x

9. Kent, C. (2005). War on Drugs? Chiropractic Journal, 20.2, 37 - 44. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/194462370/fulltext?accountid=13380

10. Ritter, A., McLeod, R., & Shanahan, M., National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. (2013). Government Drug Policy Expenditure in Australia 2009/10. Retrieved from the University of New South Wales website http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/news/law-enforcement-takes-lion%E2%80%99s-share-illicit-drug-spend Reflection: http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64705006

http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64705584