Social Policy - Drug policy and crime - Harm reduction vs Prohibition Harmful drugs are an issue that creates controversy just by being mentioned, let alone acted upon by public policy. Despite this, policy actors must address drugs, through action or inaction, for the chance to make our society safer and healthier. Scientists and policy makers tend to agree that some drugs can be harmful to their users (Nordegren, 2002), but there are two broad camps of opinion on how best to protect users from these negative effects. This paper will discuss the ways that the policies of harm reduction and prohibition are formed, and identify the key actors in this policy space. This policy issue would not exist, were it not for the people affected by drug policy, the drug users. Drug users can encapsulate anything from a heroin addicts, to those who rely on prescribed pharmaceutical drugs for pain. These drug users are all policy actors, who are influenced by policy changes made at a government level. There are a range of reasons why people use drugs, from purely recreational, through to strong mental illness and addiction. However, despite being the ones most affected, and most at risk from drug policy, history has shown that drug users rarely get any real input into drug policy decisions (Hathaway, 2001). Drug users are part of the policy universe, and therefore have a say in the ‘Agenda-setting’ stage of the policy cycle (Howlett, Ramesh, & Perl, 2009). However, drug users could be seen to have less political power on their specific issue than many other groups in society. Because of the taboo, and in some cases criminal, nature of their activities, it becomes much more difficult to form organised interest groups, or even simply to gain p... ... middle of paper ... ...nals from those who believe that if there is stronger policing and prohibition on drugs, fewer people will be able to access them and therefore less net negative effect of drugs on personal health; and those who support harm reduction, who believe that people will still find ways to access harmful drugs, regardless of prohibition, and that instead we should focus on education and support programs - with addicts able to seek help, without the fear of arrest (Adamson & Todd, 2010). An example of the influence that health professionals have as a policy actor in this case is from Portugal. In response to the extreme levels of heroin usage in Portugal in the 1990’s under prohibition, health actors campaigned for a harm reduction policy, which took troubled addicts out of the prison system and offered them medical help, with the criminal side taking a focus on the suppliers
Bruce K. Alexander’s essay “Reframing Canada’s ‘Drug Problem’” is about shifting the focus from intervention to prevention. Alexander explains that in Canada there have been three major waves of drug intervention: “Criminal prosecution and intensive anti-drug” (225), “medicinal and psychological treatment” (225), and the ‘“harm reduction’ techniques” (225) being the most resent. The “’harm reduction’” (225) consisted of: clean injectable heroin, clean needles, methadone, and housing for addicts. Although each of the methods is devoted and knowledgeable, they have done little to decrease the deaths or suppress the unhappiness. While clean heroin did work well few addicts quit using and many found
Perhaps one of the most pressing concerns is health and the assumption that to a certain degree criminalization is justified by preserving health. Illicit drugs are, in reality, not as hazardous to public health as accustomed views present- particularly in relation to certain recreational activities that are legal. Of the 25,000 illegal drug use-induced fatalities the National Institute on Drug Abuse has brought to light, the majority is more correctly due to drug prohibition than consumption. Also, some 14,300 of the casualties are a result of diseases like AIDS, transferred (generally) because of contaminated drug injection needles. Needle exchange programs for sterile needles are encouraged by the World Health Organization, amongst many other international organizations, as it is considered as possibly the greatest innovation for the health improvement of users. However, the federal government disallows the appropriation of its funds to these programs because the possession and sale of syringes still remain largely illegal. Furthermore, - as I explain later on- between the sellers and producers, there is no real confidence in the contents and hence, dangerousness of a given street drug. Considering the already growing level of consumption, imagine the gains of, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supervising illicit drugs, parallel to their work on food and
Drug dependence or addiction reliance is an expanding scourge around the world. Drug legalization or at least decriminalization has been discussed for quite a long time as an answer for the drug issue. Indeed, at times authorization appears to be legitimate however in a few circumstances it is most certainly not. The relationship between of crime and drugs, the distinctions and similarities between alcohol and drugs and the advantages of an organized commerce approach in drug legalization. (Bonevac, 2015)
In Australia the Government uses three methods to tackle drugs; Demand reduction, supply reduction and harm minimization. Needle and syringe programs are under harm minimization category. Supply reduction is focused on drug dealers and drug makers and is brought about by law enforcement. In the Demand reduction method it is tried to decrease the number of people taking drugs through anti-drug advertisements and campaigns, legislation, rehabilitation centers. On the other hand harm minimization recognizes the fact that drugs can never be eradicated fro...
FITZPATRICK, Michael (2001). “The Lessons of the Drugs War”, Spiked,. Online at: , consulted on March 30th, 2004.
I base my support of the decriminalization of all drugs on a principle of human rights, but the horror and frustration with which I voice this support is based on practicality. The most tangible effect of the unfortunately labeled "Drug War" in the United States is a prison population larger than Russia's and China's, and an inestimable death toll that rivals the number of American casualties from any given war, disease or catastrophe.
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
The Judiciary Branch of the United States government is responsible for interpreting the law. Those involved with this branch determine the meaning of the laws and decide what to do with those who break them. Because of a drug movement that took place through the 1980s, the courts have severely punished those who break laws associated to drugs; Congress is now trying to step in to change the way the Judiciary Branch is forced to punish such criminals. Congress has been busy the past couple of years evaluating the proper sentencing of those convicted of drug crimes. Many men and women of Congress are joining forces in an attempt to come up with a solution to propose as an amendment. Our elected leaders believe the need for the reform of drug crimes is due because of the number of cases and number of years those convicted are spending in prisons. Because of the drug wars that took place in the United States, the minimum sentence has been set so high today. Drug reform is needed in the United States, and those convicted of drug crimes with improper sentences need to have their sentence reduced. 1
For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
The public health model differs from traditional health practices, as its focus is on the health of the public instead of one patient. It uses a “3 prong approach to prevention and intervention” “known as the agent, host, and the environment.” This is because threats to public health require a susceptible host, an infectious agent, and a supportive environment that allows the spread of infection. By doing this, professionals are able to develop preventions against issues of public health. This would include teaching children to say no to drugs at a young age in order to prevent addiction in the future, as they are susceptible hosts to becoming addicts. Also making drugs illegal to keep the agent from being accessible to people who could become addicts. The approach is useful in all areas of public health, and has been proven to intervene in the likeliness that something will become
The National Drug Control Strategy was issued two years ago to reduce drug use among teenagers and adults. The success of the President’s drug policy can be measured by its results. The student drug testing approach has reduced drug use and discouraged first time users significantly. Communities have been more actively involved in anti-drug programs for youth and adults. The increase in budget for law enforcement will enhance their effectiveness in detaining drug lords and cartels.
The war on drugs and the violence that comes with it has always brought around a hot debate about drug legalization. The amount of violence that is associated with drugs is a result from harsher drug laws and prohibition.
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.