Illicit Drug Policy

Drug policy is a crucial topic in the country today. Substance abuse, as well as drug-related crime rates, are a huge problem. This is a fact. The way to fix the problem of substance abuse, however, is widely disagreed upon. Some think that stricter laws regarding drug possession and use would solve the problem, while others believe that loosening the restrictions would be a better option. The issue of legalizing drugs, especially marijuana, is one that is debated all the time. In fact, in 1995, a survey was conducted on the most important policy issues and eighty five percent of the country placed drugs at the top of the list (Falco 1996). Many states are actually beginning to decriminalize, and even

This essay is going to look at Howard Parker et al’s (1998) theory of ‘normalisation’ and critically evaluate whether or not it still relevant in contemporary society. The essay will begin by explaining the theory in relation to how and where it developed from. The essay will move on to focus on specific aspects such as globalisation and how certain issues have affected the ‘normalisation’ of recreational drug use. The focus will then move onto describing the seven dimensions of ‘normalisation’ that Howard et al (1998) developed; drug availability, drug

There was a great push for a non-judgmental approach that would ‘reduce physical, social and psychological risks to individuals who use drugs and to society as a whole’ (McCann & Temenos, 2015, p. 217). Never the less, this was a highly contested set of policy formulation across all levels of governance.

According to the Durkheimian perspective, the public sees drug use as an unacceptable behavior and recognizes it as a threat to morality and values. As such, drug users must be punished in order to restore societal harmony and deter future offenses. The increasingly punitive reaction to drug use in the 1980’s can be seen as a reaction to the public’s increasing perception that drugs are a threat to the moral fabric of society. By inflicting severe punishment on drug offenders, the community is satisfied with the knowledge that drug addicts are paying for

In the past forty years, the United States has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars funding enforcement and prevention in the fight against drug use in America (Suddath). Despite the efforts made towards cracking down on drug smugglers, growers, and suppliers, statistics show that addiction rates have remained unchanged and the number of people using illegal drugs is increasing daily (Sledge). Regardless of attempts to stem the supply of drugs, the measure and quality of drugs goes up while the price goes down (Koebler). Now with the world’s highest incarceration rates and greatest illegal drug consumption (Sledge), the United States proves that the “war on drugs” is a war that is not being won.

In pre-modern times, drugs took on a role of medicinal use. As they were distributed in a free market without any constraints, Opium was recommended for sleepless nights, Cocaine for anesthesia, Hashish for relaxation (Hart, Ksir & Ray). These drugs were not dubbed as harmful, therefore, under the appropriate circumstances, provided beneficial effects to its users. More recently, individuals are more inclined to use drugs as an ‘escape’. Stimulants provide a sort of alternate existence which tends to reduce mental tension, increase energy, or induce euphoria (Hart, Ksir & Ray). Argumentatively speaking, drug use only affects the user, so there is no valid reasoning for impairing the freedom of citizens by prohibiting them. Individuals benefit by having the freedom to use

Throughout this essay the sociological imagination is used to analyse the historical, cultural and structural reasons for drug use and abuse. Within this parameter the sociological imagination is applied, using studies research conducted in the United Kingdom, Australia, Russia and the United States. The sociological imagination was defined by Charles Write Mills as a ‘quality of mind’. (Mills quoted by Germov, Poole 2007: 4 ) It is stimulated by an awareness to view the social world by looking at how one’s own personal problems and experiences form a relationship to the wider society. In Victorian society the majority of people believed there was no ‘drug problem.' (Berridge, 1999) The substances used in Britain at the time like opium

As a major policy issue in the United States, the War on Drugs has been one of the most monumental failures on modern record. At a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of lives lost and many thousands of others ruined by untreated addiction or incarceration, America's policy orientation concerning drug laws is due for reconsideration. Indeed, the very philosophical orientation of the War on Drugs and of the current drug policy in the United States has been one of prosecution and imprisonment rather than one of decriminalization, treatment and rehabilitation. As our medical and scientific communities characterize addiction as a disease, the United States government continues to characterize this disease as a crime. And in doing so, it has created an unnecessary criminal class in the United States. The research, supplemental political cartoons and proposed research will set out to prove that stiffer drug laws will only have the impact of criminalizing countless drug addicts who might otherwise benefit substantially from rehabilitation and other treatment-based strategies. With a specific focus on the prohibition of marijuana even for medical use, and using the Toulmin model for putting forth and completing the argument, the research will set out to demonstrate the irrational

There is a debate in the American government system on how to handle the use of drug and alcohol. In the 1960s drugs were uprising along with youth rebellion and in 1971 Nixon declared a “War on Drugs” (Citation a brief). This name is not to be confused with the band War on Drugs, but the term is still popularly used to describe the policies that Government officials are making regarding drugs and alcohol. This debate got reheated when Colorado legalized weed for medical and recreational use, followed by several other states. There has slowly been a shift in mindset from, “alcoholics are drug addicts are all criminals and we (the law) should throw them in jail” to “addiction is a disease.” Even the way that addicts/alcoholics are treated has changed to treatment centers with specialist versus throwing them in the hospital to detox and hoping for a change. Policies that are shifting the penalty from incarceration to treatment reflect these changes and help the individual suffering from the disease to get back on their feet. The war on drugs rings on, but changes are being made.

A great deal of harm is caused by illicit drugs, particularly to dependant users. Drug use damages the user and diminishes an individual’s social cohesion. An individual’s dependency on illicit drugs places a heavy burden on the Australian legal system, welfare(Centrelink), the justice system(lawyers) and the medical system. The many burdens caused by the manufacture, supply and use of illicit drugs effect the efficiency of Australia. The Drugs misuse and trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) applies to over 240 drugs, including

Symbolic interactionists would look at the problem in one of three ways. A follower of the differential association theory might say one sees other members of one's subculture abusing or dealing drugs, and they learn to perceive that as normal (Houts 2). The labeling theory suggests an individual may have been labeled a drug addict and experienced a change in his or her self image and became a drug addict, or because he or she were given that label were denied some opportunities, and had to resort to that life style to survive (Flory 2).

Since Talcott Parson is a functionalist who believes each individual needs to contribute to the collective whole to maintain a functional society, he would view deviance as harmful. However, Parsons would also think of deviance as useful, as it reinsures the collective’s norms. On the other hand, Herbert Blumer, a symbolic interactionism, would propose that individuals have given drugs diverse and subjective symbols; some might view them as blissful others might think of them as dangerous and repulsive. However, Blumer would also say that one’s interpretation of a symbol is not permanent therefore, people’s ideas around deviance and drugs could change. Lastly, George C. Homans, who is an exchange/rational choice theorist, would say deviance

Many social stigmas are associated with drug use within our society. At one point in my life I shared the negative connotations associated to drug abuse with the vast majority of the population of this country and the society in which I live. As I matured and began forming my own opinions based on several personal experiences, I began to disagree with the believed norm that drugs are bad for our society. They are a means of escape for some just the same as alcohol and tobacco is for millions of others in this country. Those legal substances are just as bad for your body and habit forming as other illegal substances. Why do so many people frown on those of us who need our help? Drug addiction is a disease yet it’s

The limit of what is socially acceptable for each gender to participate in seems to not exist for males, however for females, reaching this point does not require much deviance. Deviance is defined as any violation of norms. It is clear that the use of drugs is very gender specific, and if identify as other than a male, informal sanctions are certain to occur from peers and parents. On

normality of regular illicit drug use is reversing or, to some extent, has slowed down (Manning, 2013: 53). Shiner and Newburn (1997: 516) argue that both the frequency of illicit drug use “are easily exaggerated” by research which advocates increasing normalisation. Shiner and Newburn (1997) maintain that a majority of youths have never used an illicit drug, with the number of regular illicit drug users remaining less than is portrayed. Moreover, the concept of normalisation, agues Shiner and Newburn (1997: 525), gives “inadequate attention to the normative context of behaviour”, noting that normalisation, instead, is underpinned by a “confusion between normalcy and frequency" (1997: 514). Because many young people and adults have never taken an illicit drug, with a limited amount of regular