Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Illicit Drugs In Australia And Problems Caused Criminology Essay
outlaw(a) Drugs In Australia And Problems Ca delectationd Criminology EssayResearch by the Australian Institute of Criminology (2004) has outlined the impact of illegitimate doses on nightspot. umpteen people assume in that respect is a direct correlation amid medicines and horror and this research undertaken in fact shows that do doses engage and crime have similar origins. Origins such as poor social pro vast systems, difficultly in school, association with deviant peer groups and lack of access to stinting support systems be the main similarities with medicine wasting diseasers and sorrys. The results of this research have undetermined our eyes to the direct link and the magnitude of the illegitimate dose trouble. It is non possible to quantify the exact cost of illicit do do medicatess utilize to the Australian community. However, some components nooky be measured directly, such as government expenditure by means of the National Illicit Drug dodge (NDIS) , but m whatsoever of the social cost borne by the community, such as the extra cost of welf are, health and law and order services, can merely be estimated. In addition, a number of costs associated with illicit drug occasion are not quantifiable, such as pain and paltry resulting from a pared quality of life. Nevertheless a number of studies travail to quantify some of the costs of drug use, including social costs. Many overly examine how these costs compare with the costs of licit drug use in the community (Burton, K 2004). Statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and mankind assistance have discovered that Marijuana/cannabis accounted for 71% of illicit drug arrests in 2004-05. Further, in 2005, one in 10 prisoners was imprisoned for drug- cerebrate offences and in the end in 2003-04, 88% of juvenile detainees had used an illicit substance 6 months prior to arrest and 70% were intoxicated at the time of offence.The Australian criminal judge system currently has two come alonges to the illicit drug (for clarification, the definition of Illicit Drugs means a drug whose doing, sale or monomania is prohibited) problem. Prohibition and scathe minimisation which will be discussed below. In short, the main aim of hindrance of drugs is to implement legislation and laws as a common means of attempting to control drug use. On the other(a) egest we have psychic trauma minimisation which includes a range of targeted strategies designed to reduce drug-related harm for particular individuals and communities. It aims to reduce the harmful consequences of drugs when consumption cannot be elevate reduced.Drug laws have not stopped people using drugs, both it has done is create a multi-million dollar illegal market and kindle criminal acts to support such addictions. However, the economic costs associated with harmful drug use, including prevention, intercession, loss of productivity in the workplace, property crime, theft, accidents and law -enforcement activities, amount to over $18 billion annu onlyy (Collins Lapsley 1996). Which proves that the drug prohibition is not effective and some other admittance needs to be introduced. Prohibition is increasingly regarded as flawed in principle and a resounding failure in radiation diagram (Wodak Owens, 1996). When the drug laws in Australia were first introduced they came through prohibition instead of regulation. The reason was, that once something evil was banned, the problem was solved. This was not the case as ban such illegal drugs has only made the productions of same outgrowth and created the image of drug traffickers and an illegal underworld to make and distribute such drugs through illegal avenues. As Wodak and Owens statedFocusing on drug use rather than drug-related harm is like concentrating on a mirage (p. 9)In summary, prohibition has been sensibly roaring in raising the health, social and economic costs of drug use. However, from each one year wi th technological change, geopolitical developments and the new cunning environment make the job of prohibition even harder.On 2 April 1985 Australia officially adopted another view on illegal drugs and this lift was known as harm minimisation. This approach involves supply decline, demand reduction and harm reduction. Harm minimisation has approached the drug use problem by introducing such schemes as randomness to drug users about how to safely use drugs and supervised injection rooms for users. Extensive consultation and collaboration betwixt these services and jurisprudence have been important in their success in reducing the spread of blood borne viruses in the community. Governments do not let off illegal risk behaviours such as injecting drug use they greet that these behaviours occur and that they have a responsibility to develop and implement public health and law-enforcement measures designed to reduce the harm that such behaviours can provoke (Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy 199846). Harm minimisation encourages change in our attitudes towards people who use drugs including those who are physically and psychologically dependant on illegal drugs. However, whether this is an effective approach is a common argument. One advantage is the fact that Australia does have the lowest reported rate of HIV transmittal in the world which is evidence alone that harm minimisation approach can work in the community. Harm minimisation can beat be viewed in context of community safety and this is an approach to drug use to help keep people safe when they choose to use drugs.One important policy intervention that has gained increased prominence in recent eld is the cheer of drug and drug related (crimes pull while under the influence of drugs) offenders. Aimed at deterring, educating or treating the causes of drug dependence, excursion involves the use of the criminal evaluator system to provide pick responses, including referral to drug treatmen t. The main aim of prohibition of drugs is to implement legislation and laws as a common means of attempting to control drug use. On the other pass on harm minimisation recognizes the need to seek a balance between supply reduction (disrupt both the supply of illicit drugs entering Australia and the production and distribution of illicit drugs within Australia), demand reduction (reduce the desire for and zeal to obtain and use drugs) and harm reduction strategies (reduce the impacts of drug-related harm on individuals and communities). tardily harm minimisation took on another strategy known as a indirect scheme. In April 2009 the Council of Australian Government (COAG) endorsed the National Illicit Drugs Strategy (NDIS) package, providing over $111,536,000 to create a tough on drugs enterprisingness that gives priority to diverting illicit drug offenders into treatment. Guidelines were created for States and Territories to divert minor illicit drug offenders into sagacity, ed ucation and treatment at many levels of the criminal justice system. The aim was to reduce the amount of offenders that appear before the judicature for possession of illicit drugs , provide incentives for minor offenders to address their drug use and increase access to drug education and treatment. This strategy is based on a harm minimisation approach which refers to policies and programs aimed at reducing drug-related harm and protect the community and users. Dr Woolridge (past Federal Health Minister)1999 has stated that it is clinically proven that if you can reach a drug user before the addiction becomes full-blown that you have a better chance of stopping the drug use. taking this approach statistics have shown that as of July 2007, t here(predicate) were 51 programs that divert drug and drug related offenders* 69% of programs have been introduced since 2000.* 59% were funded by the alinement of Australian Governments Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative.* 31% involved police diversion, 22% court diversion, 18% drug court diversion and 29% were mixed.* 33% of programs targeted drug use/possession offence(s), 12% drug related offence(s) and 55% any offence(s).* 45% of programs targeted adults, 27.5% youth and 27.5% mixed.* 49% resulted in assessment and compulsory treatment, 17% assessment and voluntary treatment, 9% precautions and referrals to education sessions, 20% warning/ semiformal caution/family group conference, and 8% a ok or extractal sufficeance at an education session (Hughes Ritter 2008)To meet each state and territory has created and implemented their own diversionary and harm minimisation measures to tackle the illicit drug problems. Each state and territory have metamorphoseing programs which may be somewhat different to each of the other states. Some programs may be easier to access, others may only offer for a specific group (ie indigenous people or juveniles). However, they all have the same major programs operable as outline d below. match to the Australian Institute of Criminology there are 5 types of drug-diversionary programs currently in use across Australia. Within each of these areas of criminal justice there are a number of diversionary programs available. These initiatives can be divide into groups, depending on their position along the criminal justice continuum. Starting with the pre-arrest leg the roughly important diversionary measures is police discretion where officers can discern the offence but not lay charges and provide further information to the offender about how to manage and drug problems and refer them in the decently direction. other measures in place are infringement notices, informal warnings, formal caution and caution plus intervention (where counseling/information sessions mustiness be attended). Police drug diversion -at the front end are the various police based drug diversion programs offer drug education and assessment for those individuals with minor possession o ffences relating to cannabis or other illicit substances.Next step on the criminal justice continuum is the Pre-trial grade where a charge is made but before the matter is perceive at court. Here we have options like treatment as a bail condition, conferencing or prosecutor discretion (where treatment is offered as an alternative to proceeding with prosecution). These programs are at court level and are earlier bail-based programs to provide assessment and short term treatment options for less atrocious offenders who criminal behaviour is related to their illicit drug use. The next confront is Pre- objurgate which is after conviction but before sentencing, this stage includes such measures as delay of sentence where offender may be assessed or treated. Post-conviction/sentence includes the process of sentencing. Diversionary measures can include suspended sentences requiring complying with conditions such as treatment, avoidance of drugs and specific peer groups. At this stage offenders can withal be referred to the Drug Courts which are judicially supervised and enforced treatment programs which offer long-term initiative treatment for offenders who drug dependency is a key contributor to their offending. The final stage where diversionary measures can be utlised is in the Pre-release stage which is prior to the release from goal on parole. Options here include transfers to drug treatment programs or early release to attend a supervised treatment program.Even though the diversionary programs vary between jurisdictions, for example, in some states police can only caution first time offenders or juveniles and in other jurisdictions diversion is available for any offender caught with drugs, irrespective of age or criminal history. consort to the National Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (IDDI) the findings were generally genuinely unconditional. Across all jurisdictions , the majority of people who were referred into the IDDI program did not reoffend i n the 12 to 18 month period after their diversion. In most cases, those that did reoffend did so only once during this time. (Payne et al, 2008). The cost of the various police diversion programs is significant. However, if these initiatives are achieving such their objectives, such costs should be to a greater extent than branch by the benefits of accruing to the community through a reduction of illicit drug use and related offending and reduced case loads for the criminal justice system. on that point has been only one study (Baker Goh 2004) that has examined the cost-effectiveness of diversion. The results demonstrated positive results in savings to the criminal justice system. In the first threesome years of operation it was estimated that over 18,000 police hours were saved as a result of not having to charge offenders at the time of detection, prepare matters for court and attend subsequent hearings. Baker and Goh also calculated that the scheme resulted in total savings of well over $1million dollars during the first 3 years of operation.In the years following the development of the IDDI, researchers (most notably the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, ADCA), outlined the benefits of and challenges to expanding the drug diversion and harm minimisation approach. Over climax the political perception that drug diversion was a soft option (Hughes, C 2007). While the upturned on Drugs Diversion Initiative was seen by policy makers as heralding a more humane response and more harm minimisation approach, the expression and framing of the program was that this was not the case. As John Howard saidin no right smart does it drug diversion retreat from our Tough on Drugs philosophy, our zero tolerance approach.So the point that the Government are portraying is that illicit drug use is still against the law however, if person has psychological, health and social problems, you dont belong in jail. If the problem is drug use, than that problem must be tackled in order to decrease the social impacts of illicit drug use and to prevent a new generation of drug-users committing drug related crime (Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2004). One of the positive outcomes of the harm minimisation/drug diversion initiatives is that is has now encouraged the collaboration of health and law enforcement services. Which were once two very separate divisions have have forces to tackle the issue of illicit drug use and have broken down the barriers that once segregated the divisions as traditionally the health and justice systems have had little to do with each other with no referral path between them. Diversion programs are gradually changing this (Tresidder, J 2003).In conclusion after observing that the prohibition of drugs has not made any significant impact on the use of illicit drugs in society the harm minimisation approach was initiated. This approach was further developed and the drug diversion scheme was created to targ et the problem in return for long term solutions to protect the drug users and community from each other. Research has shown that this has been successful to some degree however it has come across as somewhat contradictory to the tough on drugs campaign that is portrayed in the media. There is many mixed messages being sent and portrayed about the approach to illicit drugs in the criminal justice system. To date the drug diversionary programs has been the only approach to illicit drugs that has made any headway and shaped around the existing drug problems. It is a policy that is designed to contemplate the variety of problems that drugs can cause and by treating the cause is the only way to tackle the problem.