Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Drug control policy USA term paper
Drug control policy USA term paper
Drug control policy USA term paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Drug control policy USA term paper
Harm Reduction Human beings are naturally defensive and react in certain ways to things such as them feeling that someone is judging them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. When it comes to drug users, approaching an addict telling them “You must stop taking drugs!” or “Drugs are going to kill you!” has not and will never work. It is more effective and sensible to approach them by informing them of the dangers of a specific drug to inform them of the potential harms that come along with the abuse of the drug. This is exactly where the policy of Harm Reduction falls into place. “According to the International Harm Reduction Association (2002) harm reduction is described as policies and programs which attempt primarily to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of mood altering substances to individual drug users, their families and communities, without [necessarily] requiring decrease in drug use.(Perez)” One specific policy that adheres and follows the harm reduction approach is the Drug Policy Alliance. Their policy is considered to be a harm reduction approach because they acknowledge the fact that “A basic tenet of harm reduction is that there has never been, and will never be, a drug-free society” (Drug Policy Alliance) and have the same aims and objectives as the approach of harm reduction. This policy is more of an intervention than just a basic rehab that only focuses on the use of drug but not the bigger picture – the reason people use the drugs. Implications of implementing this approach may be “to reduce the dangers of drug use for the community and the individual, and to shift the focus of illegal drugs as primarily a criminal justice of medical issue to a social and/or public health iss... ... middle of paper ... ...inside of rehab because they generally do not have open access to drugs while in inpatient rehab. However, once they are believed to have overcame abusive drug use and are released, the go back to the same communities, are put in the same situations, hand around the same people and end up becoming the same addict that they were before. I believe that this approach to drug abuse is much more effective and it would be better if our policies actually followed this approach instead of neglectfully pushing it off insisting that this another way to promote the use of drugs because it is not. This approach solves more problems than in causes. Our current methods are to just arrest drug users, get them off the streets, possibly fine them and throw them in rehab or make them do community service hours. We would have less drug related charges if this approach was used more.
Harm reduction itself is a heavily contested topic, predominantly with regards to its definition, but subsequently with its effectiveness, which is highly dependant on which definition is applied. It is important when discussing definition debates to consider that, as stated by Erickson (1995) "our interpretations of the term tend to change over time and this is a healthy process that is essential in the full articulation of an 'emerging public health perspective'" (Erickson, 1995: 283). There is literature to suggest that the term 'harm reduction' was firstly used only in application to programmes and policies that tried to reduce harm for individuals that continued to use substances, and as such did not include abstinence focused approaches (Single and Rohl, 1997). This deliberate exclusion from definition is beneficial in the sense that it clarifies harm reductions stance in
Pauly, B. (2008). Harm reduction through a social justice lens. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(1), 4-10. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.11.005
After learning and reading more about Harm Reduction I feel as if it is an appropriate response to the prevalence of drug-related mortality and premature morbidity from preventable causes with our society. There is no one singularly effective route to take addiction intervention or prevention as the overall efficacy of programs is dependent on how they address the individual substance user needs. I have come to realize throughout this week that harm reduction encompasses a multitude of diverse settings and target groups as well as utilising multiple skills and disciplines. I feel the reason why harm reduction is controversial is that often times the nature of its practice often pushes the limits of knowledge as well as the accepted moral standards with in society. Why give an alcoholic alcohol or heroin and opiate user methadone when you are try to prevent them from using the substance in the first place? Are you not doing more harm than good? Some may even see Harm reduction as enabling in a way. Sure I can agree that giving addicts access to instruments for use (i.e. needle) or their drug of choice falls into a grey area, however it is the safe admiration and monitoring that make harm reduction
The harm reduction model the most prevalent ideology within the large spectrum of substance control methods, it is defined by the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction as any program or policy designed to reduce drug-related harm without requiring the cessation of drug use. In essence instead of adhering to the conventional eradication style practices aforementioned, this style focuses on helping the offender cope with their mental illness. This not only can encourage offenders to take active participation within their treatment, but makes them the directors of their own rehabilitation using their own will power to gauge treatment. Although the harm reduct...
. Harm reduction is referred to as a “pragmatic” approach because it starts with accepting that individuals have and always will, use drugs and engage in high-risk behaviors in ways that pose a threat to both themselves and their community. While the focus is placed on reducing consequences, not decreasing or eliminating unsafe behaviors, harm reduction does not preclude abstinence from being a goal as long as it is one which the affected individual identifies, thus rendering it compatible with a number of preexisting treatment modalities. Due to its multidisciplinary involvement, various definitions of harm reduction exist and “reflect a diverse movement that values contributions of both individuals and communities, of scientific discovery and human rights advocacy, and of grassroots and public health movements” (Marlatt, Larimar, and Witkiewitz, 2012, p. 27).
Over the years, drug abuse has been a rising problem in almost every country in the world. Day by day more people are involved in this endless cycle of drug craving, money shortage, and drug related crimes. Congressmen and politicians of United States, seeing this unstoppable crime wave which is about to spread throughout the country, begin to address various kinds of possible solutions to end this crisis in the most efficient and effective way. As discussed in Alan M. Dershowitz's "The Case for Medicalizing Heroin" and Charles B. Rangel's "Legalize Drugs? Not on Your Life," the most popular proposition set forward by growing number of leaders now is to legalize the use of drugs; but will it help solving the problem or make it even worse? I agree with Rangel that in order to end drugs abuse completely, we have to find the root of the problem and use any forces necessary and retain the determination to keep on fighting because it will not be an easy battle.
The harsh punishment for drug crimes in the United States of America is not working. “With roughly half a million people behind bars in the U.S. for nonviolent drug offenses, drugs are as plentiful and widely used as ever” (Grenier, 2013). Even with very harsh long sentences and many people imprisoned drug use is as common as ever in America. ‘We cannot close our eyes anymore’ to the cost in human lives destroyed and taxpayer dollars wasted” (Holcomb, 2015). Harsh drug penalties are destroying American citizens lives and is costing a lot of money from taxpayers. “Yet, people who want treatment can often expect to endure an obstacle course just to get help” (Grenier, 2013). The Unites States government is spending a large amount of money on arresting and imprisoning drug users, yet are putting little to no focus on funding drug medical help for
Illicit drug use and the debate surrounding the various legal options available to the government in an effort to curtail it is nothing new to America. Since the enactment of the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914 (Erowid) the public has struggled with how to effectively deal with this phenomena, from catching individual users to deciding what to do with those who are convicted (DEA). Complicating the issue further is the ever-expanding list of substances available for abuse. Some are concocted in basements or bathtubs by drug addicts themselves, some in the labs of multinational pharmaceutical companies, and still others are just old compounds waiting for society to discover them.
The following is a summary of the President’s policy emphasizing on the President’s stated objectives. Stopping drug use before it starts, providing drug treatment, and attacking the economic basis of the drug trade are the main positions the President stressed. The President’s policy was analyzed by the important tasks played by law enforcement, schools and the community. The apprehension of major drug organizations will be explained how they attribute to the policy. The effectiveness of the President’s drug policy will also be evaluated.
There is an epidemic of almost epic proportions in this wonderful nation called the United States. However, this epidemic is not only national; it is worldwide. And because of this epidemic there are other problems in society such as an increase in crime and prison overcrowding. The epidemic is that of Substance Abuse and Addiction. The penal systems of each state house more prisoners due to drug related crimes than any other. The statistics do not lie; they only tell the truth. Treatment instead of incarceration would be beneficial to the addict himself and to society as a whole. Evidence shows treatment would lower the amount of criminal activity due to substance abuse and addiction. Logic shows that if a problem is cured then the consequences of the problem disappear. There are different points of view on the subject of treatment or incarceration for those criminals who are substance abusers. And there are valid points in either argument.
Drugs within our communities pose a severe threat to our society as a whole. The United States if full of people who are unsatisfied with their lives, jobs, finances, and relationships; furthermore, they turn to drugs. A lot of people, “coat their problems with powder’, because they don’t know how to cope with the issues and stress that life throws at them. They consider drugs to be a “victimless crime”, and tend to think that they are not hurting anyone by doing them. They believe that it should be there choice in what they do with their body, and with their life. As true as this may be, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves and their irrational, uneducated decisions. People frequently become victims to their own bad decisions,
Drugs have very harmful effects on the user and the people with whom the user interacts.
Drug addiction is one of the hardest things to overcome in life. Once a person becomes addicted to drugs, not only does it affect them, but it affects everyone around them. There are many options for addicts, but it is very hard to admit being an addict. Drug users should have the option of what method they would like to take in order to help them with their addiction. Options, like psychotherapy and education, can be positive for the addict and help change the attitude of the addict for the better. To non- addicts, another way would be serving jail time for your “crime”. Others believe that drugs should become decriminalized so that there would people doing “illegal” things. While some either disagree or agree with jail time, the real problem at hand is how society will change when given the resources or the punishment of abusing drugs. According to California State University, “There are many people and
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.
Drug abuse can destroy the life of a person. Therefore, while combating with the dealers and buyers’ organizations with no other importance than