High+Support+For+Getting+High

High Support for Getting High __Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party (HEMP) - Decriminalisation__ Courtney Parish - n8641587 Tutor: Michelle Cornford

[]

The ‘Help End Marijuana Prohibition’ (HEMP) political party was founded in 1993, the main aspirations this party has is, is exactly what the title of this party proposes; to legalise and regulate cannabis for personal, medical and industrial use. The other policies it wishes to strive for are; to remove its black market status and allow for home growing and regulated sales through outlets, allow cannabis to be used for medical use including its so called relaxing, painkilling, and anti nausea and healing properties, to be used as a industrial product in the form of producing fuel, fibre, food and oil etc and lastly to release all the prison population who were imprisoned for solely cannabis and erase previous convictions associated with cannabis. (Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party, 2013).

The Public Health Issue: Should cannabis be decriminalized? That is the main question. A substantial amount of the population, but still a minority engage in cannabis use regularly. A report conducted by the illicit drug data report found that more than 93,000 drug related arrests occurred during 2011 and 2012 (Australian Crime Commission, 2012), highlighting that a major focus has been spent on the criminal justice system. The health system is also another factor to consider for drug abusers, as there are a number of health burdens that drugs, in particularly cannabis, can have on its users. This leads us to question whether there is enough effective rehabilitation programs for drug abusers, or is there a focus on the criminal justice system? Throughout this report, the positive and negative effects of cannabis will be discussed, which will generate another question to be asked – why is the stigma still there? These three questions all contribute to the public health issues surrounding drug use.

This is relevant today as such change and push for this topic has been brought to the surface all over the world and in Australia at the recent 2013 election, and would have tremendous impacts on the health of Australians, both positive and negative. There are two sides to the debate and clearly the artefact adopts the positive effects that decriminalising and making cannabis legal would have upon the nation. A focus will be particularly on the impacts of decriminalisation.

Literature Review: As mentioned earlier Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in Australia with figures showing an increased uptake of use between 2007 – 2010. (Australian Institute of Health and Ageing, 2011). Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in Australia with approximately 1.9 million people over the age of 14 having used the drug in the past 12 months, this figure has increased from 1.6 million in 2007 to 1.9 in 2010 (Australian Institute of Health and Ageing, 2011).There are two sides to the debate which consists of the positive outcomes of introducing a legislation that allows personal quantities of cannabis to be legalised and the beneficial medicinal effects to be taken advantage of or the other end of the spectrum which includes continuing an illicit stance prohibiting all illicit drug use including cannabis and focusing on the potential negative outcomes on health, and well-being of the population.

The debate has gone on for many years of the possible positive and negative effects legalising cannabis would have. For a real life example of what decriminalisation has upon a society, we look to Portugal, having a framework in play that decriminalises all illicit drugs. This approach, which began in 2001 has seen mixed reports of increased drug use, some studies show no increase and some others show small increases, (Hughes & Stevens, 2011) Stakeholders agreed that there was a small to moderate increase of uptake among adults however opinions were split as to whether this was solely due to the legalisation or if it was significant and concerning (Hughes & Stevens, 2011). Portugal’s decriminalising aimed to provide a more humane legal framework and expanding policies and resources to areas such as prevention, harm reduction, treatment, social reintegration and supply reduction. The decriminalisation does have boundaries as quantities are governed (no more than an average 10 days consumption's worth) (Triguerios, Fatima, 2009) and then decisions by a collection of professionals evaluate where there is a presence of drug dependence, if so then they are recommended into a treatment or education program rather than a sanction and if not dependent then attendance at a police station, fines or education service can be imposed. (Hughes & Stevens, 2011). The article concluded with confidence that the policy definitely does not vastly increase drug use, and may have other benefits such as reducing the criminal system burden and increase the rate of uptake of drug treatments.

There are many factors and influences to take into consideration when approaching the debate for either side, both sides have their pros and cons but from a public health point of view the potential harmful effects this including both physical, mental and psychological should be highly regarded, in terms of the prevention and policy of the future of Australians. The negative health effects from smoking cannabis affect a great number of systems in the body, Vasodilation and tachycardia is an acute effect which affects the cardiovascular system, this in turn increases workload on the heart and is an acute effect of cannabis. The ingredient that produces this ‘high’ effect is called tetrahydrocannabinol or THC. The respiratory system is also affected, virtually in the same way as if one was smoking tobacco products. The same ingredients are found in cannabis smoke, with the exception of nicotine. Present in cannabis, is carbon monoxide, tar and other carcinogens of which are in larger amounts than tobacco smoke. (Cho, Hirsch & Johnstone, 2005). The absence of a filter results in these tars and particles to be more concentrated (Gurley, 2010) and in conjunction with deeper inhalation of the smoke creates harmful effects for the respiratory system such as bronchitis and emphysema (Cho, Hirsch & Johnstone, 2005). Dental hygiene is also a great health risk for cannabis smokers with higher rates of caries and periodontal disease being reported (Cho, Hirsh & Johnstone, 2005). The mental effects THC has can be dangerous, as lab studies show compromised distance perception, concentration, reaction time and attention, hand eye coordination and decision making time even at low doses (Australian Govt Department of health and ageing, n.d.). Driving is also highly dangerous under the influence of this drug due to some of the effects already listed and decriminalising cannabis may result in a vast increase of motor vehicle accidents.

Of course if these were the only effects of cannabis there would be no debate or consideration of decriminalising the drug. The benefits of THC have helped people affected with chronic diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis. Reports have brought forward evidence that claims THC reduces nausea, is an analgesic and increases appetite which benefits chemotherapy patients. Evidence also suggests that THC suppresses muscle spasms of which are an uncontrollable symptom of multiple sclerosis. (Department of Health and Ageing, n.d.) There are other claims that THC can also benefit neuropathic pain, HIV and herpes zoster infection (Veitz-keenan &Spivakovsky, 2011). Currently, Australia adopts a harm minimisation approach which acknowledges that drug use is occurring (Department of Health and Ageing, n.d.) and accepts, but tries to minimise, the harm associated as much as possible through such things as treatment programs and the justice system. Alcohol and tobacco, of course both legal substances, have more of a harmful effect on society from a public health perspective (Department of Health & Ageing, n.d.).

This prohibition in Australia leads to a stigma towards drug users and an incredible amount of people entering the criminal system, this in turn result in vast expenses and resources used such as police work and court hearings. An illicit drug data report from the Australian crime commission states in 2004-2005 there were 54,936 cannabis related arrests. This is 71% of all drug related arrests in the period. (Department of Health and Ageing, n.d.)

Cultural and Social Analysis: Moral panic, is the idea that there are evil doers in society that threaten society and a consequence of their behaviour, the moral order. Therefore something should be done about this behaviour and these people (Krinsky, n.d.). The fear of decriminalization follows the accepted social structure that is in place currently, those who do not fit within the structure are viewed as a deviant (Cohen, 2011). This idea to decriminalize what the deviants engage in creates a public fear due to the stigma, this in turn creating a moral panic when the issue arises (Kurzban & Leary, 2001).

The idea that something should be done, are such things as increasing strength of rules, more laws and longer sentences etc. Awareness of this issue is very important in our society today, regardless of what side of the fence you sit on for the debate, the prevalence of use is significant in our society and growing. We should be discussing whether it is smart to consider cannabis as a decriminalised substance and weigh up both pros and cons associated with it. If stigma was not attached to the use of this drug, dependent and problem users may actively seek help and not be worried about stigma and being looked down upon in society. This may lead to fewer victims entering the criminal system and an increased out reach for help. Whether or not you par take in cannabis use, it is affecting us all in terms of taxpaying dollars that go towards the courts, services and money lost from burden relating to drug use. The panic arises from the stigma attached to drug users and in turn accompanying assumptions regarding motive, addiction and characteristics of users. The stigmatisation that is present among society towards problem drug users, is a large barrier to recovery. (Lord, 2013).

Analysis & Learning Reflections: The ‘Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party’ is a recent example of the push of decriminalisation in Australia, as it is around the world. Drugs are embedded in the background of all societies mainly seen in the negative effects such as mental illness, physical harm, crime and cost. For me personally, I am for this to remain as an illegal substance, the money saved through police and the criminal system, I think, would not outweigh the health burden and losses associated with decriminalisation of cannabis. This artefact is a good representation of increasing of social acceptance of new ideas and past policies that are brought to the modern day public to be proposed to legalise/ decriminalise. My personal opinion lies with the idea that helping people is the approach to adopt rather than send them to the criminal system, which in turn hinders them through employment and housing etc but there are many health risks that are incredibly high especially in regards to respiratory diseases, and mental illness that introducing cannabis as a decriminalised substance would introduce also to the population.

Reflections: http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/Cannabis+Use+-+The+Good%2C+Bad+and+the+Ugly+-+It%27s+more+bad+than+good

[]

References: Australian Crime Commission. (2012). Illicit Drug Data Report 2011-2012. Retrieved from Australian Crime Commission website http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/IDDR/2011-12/IDDR-2011-12-FINAL-HR-020513.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household survey report. Retrieved from Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737421314

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. (n.d.) Cannabis in Australia Use Supply Harms and responses. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/4FDE76ABD582C84ECA257314000BB6EB/$File/mono-57.pdf

Cho, C. M., Hirsch, R., & Johnstone, S. (2005). General and oral health implications of cannabis use. Australian Dental Journal, 50(2), 70-4. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2264/0045-0421.50.2.1446

Cohen, S. (2011). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. [EBL Version]. Retrieved from http://reader.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/(S(pw34vgnn24s5slxzxjvogbru))/Reader.aspx?p=684015&o=96&u=d%2f6QwFpdY9KzBy3C01kkGg%3d%3d&t=1383392817&h=C645BA581492A30D563DC128A91C0DD40F200CD3&s=10636159&ut=245&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n#

Gurley, J. (2010). Crucial public health issues facing legalising marijuana. Retrieved from http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/05/crucial-public-health-issues-facing-legalizing-marijuana.html

Help End Marijuana Prohibition HEMP Party. (2013). Help End Marijuana Prohibition. Retrieved from http://australianhempparty.com/

Hughes, C., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 999-1022. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azq038

Krinsky, C. (n.d.) Introduction: The Moral Panic Concept. The Ashgate Research Companion to Moral Panics. Retrieved from http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Ashgate-Research-Companion-to-Moral-Panics-Intro.pdf

Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 187-208. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187

Lord, C. (2013). The stigmatization of problem drug users: A narrative literature review. Drugs: education, prevention and policy. 20, 85-95. doi:10.3109/09687637.2012.743506

Trigueiros, F,. (2009). Drugs around the world Portugal Progressive Care. Of Substance: The National Magazine on Alcohol, Tobacco and other drugs, 7(3), 26-27. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=003658730170762;res=IELHEA

Veitz-keenan, A., & Spivakovsky, S. (2011). Cannabis use and oral diseases. Evidence - Based Dentistry, 12(2), 38. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400786 http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/873510797