Prohibition+or+decriminalisation+of+illicit+drugs?

Name: Stephen Jones Student Number: n8310971 Tutor: Jey Rodgers



[|tp://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11854741-remember-prohibition-it-still-doesnt-work] =**Artefact**=

The artefact I have chosen highlights the issue of prohibition. The black and white picture contains 3 members of organised crime holding guns. This picture was taken during the prohibition of alcohol in America which was in effect 1920-33. The text reminds us of the failure that was the prohibition of alcohol. This picture is used in contrast to the prohibition of illicit drugs which is currently used in Australia. It makes the viewer question why a method as unsuccessful as prohibition is still being used.

**Public health issue**
The public health issues encompassing drug abuse and addiction are enormous. Drug addiction leads to an array of preventable health risks such as HIV/AIDS, mental disorders, physical sickness and overdoses. Not only does addiction have a high demand on the health system, but the government must bear the financial costs of treatment, prevention, medical costs and the various services implemented to reduce drug use. The Australian government spends large amounts of money prosecuting and incarcerating drug abusers. This added cost seems redundant due to the complete failure that is prohibition. By viewing addiction to drugs as a sickness and public health issue, instead of a crime and an issue for the justice system, drug use could be more effectively and cheaply managed.

**Literature review**
The majority of international governments have traditionally attempted to control the distribution and use of illicit drugs through legislation. Legislation has been the driving force used to deter drug abusers. But does prohibition work? And if not does decriminalisation work?

**__Issues surrounding prohibition__** Prohibition is not only used in regards to illicit drugs, but was also used in the past for alcohol. History dictates that prohibition has many negative facets, while not decreasing substance use effectively. Historically homicide rates in America have increased to mirror the prohibition laws implemented over the last 100 years, miron (1999, p. 78). This is due to organised crime creating and distributing illicit drugs on a black market. One of the most influential claims advocates of criminalisation use is that drug use leads to crime. According to the AIC (2010, para. 3) 37% of detainees attribute some of their crimes to drug use, and a further 81% of property crimes in Queensland were undertaken to support their drug habit (2011, para. 1). Although there is a high correlation in regards to property crime and drug use, this data does not highlight that the majority of drug users do not harm others or their property, Sher (2003, p. 32). Although there is a definitive link between crime and drug use, the cause linking the two has not been researched adequately, it is unknown whether drugs precede crime or vice versa. The only way to gain a better understanding is to provide detailed research determining the link, Griffith (2006, p.290), Bennet & Holloway (2005, p 158). This is an important issue as crime rates and drug use have been positively linked, but there is a lack of substantial research into why there is a correlation. Over the past 10 years researchers have highlighted that prohibition has not decreased crime related to drug use, but has only served to increase the incarceration rate. The literature shows that prohibition is an ineffective means to decrease the crime rate associated with drug use. All prohibition has be able to achieve is a higher incarceration rate with no decrease in drug use. A pitfall in the current literature is that although there is a correlation between crime and drug users, and there is no proof that prohibition affects these statistics at all, and only serves to create a black market and criminal organisations. Research must be undertaken into how better to treat addiction, as prohibition is not working. The criminalization of illicit drugs has also lead to increased health risks amongst the population who are addicted to drugs. Death from overdose has increased dramatically, and due to the secretive manner that drugs must be used, HIV/AIDS cases have increased, Drucker (1999, p. 14), Drug Abuse and HIV (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2012). This data provides proof that the criminalisation of drugs has impacted negatively into the health of those addicted to drugs. **__Decriminalising drugs__** Decriminalising drugs is a newer concept that is yet to be implemented in many countries. Decriminalising illicit drugs means that drug users will not be prosecuted heavily for the use of drugs. Decriminalising is not to be confused with legalizing drugs, it is still illegal, makers and distributers of illicit drugs are heavily punished but the people suffering from addiction are viewed with compassion and are given the opportunity of treatment without fear of prosecution. Portugal was one of the first countries to decriminalise illicit drugs. The health and criminal aftermath was surprisingly beneficial, Hughes & Stevens (2010, 1000). This article highlights that there was a decrease in incarceration rates due to illicit drugs; but more surprisingly, was the health benefits of decriminalising drugs. Rates of overdoses and emergency admissions decreased, and there were virtually no new cases of HIV/AIDS due to drug injections. The method used by the authors was interviewing key stakeholders, and by reviewing the literature from Portugal in regards to the effects of decriminalising drugs. This article successfully highlights the benefits of decriminalising illicit drugs.

Although most research provides positive evidence that decriminalisation will have positive results in the “war against drugs”, Damrongplasit, Hsiao & Zhao (2006, p. 344) found that decriminalisation of drugs had a 16.2% increase in the probability of a person smoking cannabis. The methods used in this article was an endogenous probit switching, two-part, sample selection, and standard dummy variable models and propensity score stratification matching. Although the study may have found that there was an increase in cannabis use, it does not evaluate if this increase also means an increase in the amount of problem smokers, or if it is just an increase in social use. Although the subject of decriminalising drugs is hotly debated it is not often subject to evidence based research. There has been very little research undertaken into the decriminalisation of illicit drugs, especially in Australia, this is due to the fact that Portugal was one of the first countries to implement this approach and not many have followed suit, although New Zealand is beginning to, McCaffrey (2010, p. 771). Although there is little scholarly evidence the health results have been extremely beneficial in Portugal. The literature available highlights that the legislation and criminalisation approach has a negative health outcomes for those addicted to illicit drugs, only increasing incarceration rates. While there is little literature on decriminalisation, it has been very beneficial for the health of the addict compared to the alternative. **Cultural and Social Analysis** Although decriminalisation appears to be a more effective approach then criminalisation, many cultural and social factors need to be considered. As shown above, there is not enough extensive research. Due to the incarceration rates due to illicit drugs, this is a worrying prospective. Culture and Society are particularly crucial to issues encompassing illicit drugs. It is clear from an academic perspective that the criminalisation of illicit drugs in an ineffective system. People suffering from addiction to drugs have not improved in the 40+ years we have been “waging war” against drugs. These people need treatment and compassion, although there is evidence of this, if the public do not agree there will not be a change in legislation. Moral panic is central to this issue, moral panic is the perception from a society that certain behaviour is wrong and a danger to their way of life, they respond to this threat accordingly by attempting to force a change of behaviour. This generally involves tougher laws and regulation to force people to act how they deem is appropriate. A study by Weidner, (2009, p.227) in three small Midwestern cities in the United States contrasted news articles generating moral panic in their community against the amount of problem drug users there actually were in that city. It was found that articles creating moral panic were disproportionate to the amount of people addicted to illicit substances. Politicians have monopolised on the fear within communities towards illicit drugs in a bid to be elected. This makes a change within a community in regard to illicit drugs all the more difficult, the only way to change the legislation is with the support of the community, to do this the issue of moral panic must be addressed.

(a typical article creating moral panic)

[]
The main group of people who will be affected by a change in illicit drug laws is the group of drug users themselves. By decriminalising illicit drugs, problem drug users will have an outlet to seek help without the fear of prosecution. They will also have positive health benefits, by changing the legislation on illicit drugs, drug users will not have to resort to used needles or other unsanitary practices. It will also make the strength of illicit drugs easier to regulate, reducing the risk of overdosing. Awareness of the fact that addiction is a health issue and not a criminal one needs to be at the forefront of the public’s awareness. Too many people view drug addicts as criminals instead of sick people. This perception must change if any policy in regards to illicit drugs can be reviewed and changed. The only way to achieve this is to provide knowledge about the sickness of addiction and spread the message to all social groups and classes. [] This model of addiction highlights the seemingly inescapable cycle that is addiction, if moral panic is addressed. The community will not force guilt onto people suffering from addiction; the cycle will be broken, making it easier for drug abusers to receive help. As future health professionals it is important to view problem drug users as sick people, who are still deserving of our respect and help. Health professionals need to focus on providing compassion and treatment to the best of their abilities, as they are unable to change the policies already in place by the government.

**ANALYSIS OF THE ARTEFACT AND YOUR OWN LEARNING REFLECTIONS** The artefact chosen is a good reminder of the previous mistakes we have made as a culture and society in the past. Prohibition of alcohol only served to create organised crime, insight violence, create criminals from victimless crimes, create health concerns and victimise people who are sick and in need of treatment. Currently, we are repeating our previous mistakes and creating the same problems in regards to illicit drugs, just as we had for alcohol. As heath care professionals our job is to treat the illness, not judge or condemn the person because of choices they have made in their personal life. Prior to beginning this assessment piece I had the view that if you committed a crime you deserve to be punished for your actions. I still do believe this to be the case, but I now do not view people addicted to drugs as criminals. I do not deem drug use as a criminal behaviour, but as a sickness and a health problem. I still believe that if a person commits a crime such as stealing to support their habit; while still deserving treatment, have to answer for the crime they had committed. But if a person’s only vice is they use drugs, they should be treated with compassion instead of condemnation. I believe this assessment has broadened and refined my understanding and view about the disease of addiction and will help to shape me into a better health care professional when I graduate.

Links
http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/page/messages/The+Roots+of+Addiction+Run+Deep http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/page/messages/The+McDonaldisation+of+Animals

Reference List Australian Institute of Criminology. (2010). Links between Illicit Drug Use and Crime. Retrieved from []

Australian Institute of Criminology. (2011). Drug use and Property Crime. Retrieved from []

Bennet, T. & Holloway, K. (2005). //Understanding Drugs, Alcohol and Crime// (2d ed.). Open Press university.

Chu, T. & Levy, J. (2005). Injection drug use and HIV/AIDS transmission in China. //Cell Research//, //15,// 865-869. doi: 10.1038/sj.cr.7290360

Damrongplasit, K., Hsiao, C. & Zhao, X. (2010). Decriminalization and Marijuana Smoking Prevalence: Evidence from Australia. //Journal of Business & Economic Statistics//, //28,// 344-356. doi: 10.1198/jbes.2009.06129

Drucker, E. (1999). Drug Prohibition and Public Health: 25 Years of Evidence. //Public Health Reports,114,// 14-29. doi: 10.1093/phr/114.1.14

Griffith, H. (2006). Review: Understanding Drugs, Alcohol and Crime. //Probation Journal, 56,// 287-290. doi: 10.1177/026455050605300313

Hughes, C. & Stevens, A. (2010). What Can We Learn from the Portuguese Decriminalisation of Illicit Drugs? //The British Journal of Criminology, 50//, 999-1022. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azq038

McCaffrey, H. (2010). A Bitter Pill To Swallow: Portugal’s Lessons for Drug Law Reform in New Zealand. //University of Wellington Law Review, 40,// 771- 830. Retrieved from [|http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=175654001665072;res=IELHSS]

Miron, J. (1999). Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and Alcohol. //American Law and Economics Review//, //1,// 78-114. doi: 10.1093/aler/1.1.78

National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). //Drug Abuse and HIV//. Retrieved from [|www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/rrhiv.pdf]

Sher, G. (2003). On the Decriminalization of drugs. //Criminal Justice Ethics//, 22, 30-33. doi: 10.1080/0731129X.2003.9992138

Tri-Valley Psychotherapy. (2011). Addiction. Retrieved from []

Weidner, R. (2009). Methamphetamine in Three Small Midwestern Cities: Evidence of a Moral Panic. //Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 41,// 227-239. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2009.10400533