In this paper there will be an scrutiny of modern-day issues in relation to substance usage and how it is viewed by society. From the beginning, the grounds why people use substances will be explored along with an account of the differences between debatable and non debatable drug usage in order to derive an apprehension of the many grounds why substance usage is so prevailing in today ‘s society. To add to this, there will be an analysis of the current Torahs, policy ‘s and political political orientation that forms the classification and categorization of substances within the UK, in an effort to convey about an penetration into the assorted attacks, intercessions and rehabilitative schemes that have been implemented in modern-day times. From here, an thought of how the handling of substance usage and how it is dealt with will be explained based on modern attacks since the diacetylmorphine epidemic in the 1980 ‘s.
Possibly one of the most equivocal modern-day challenges for drug intervention lies in the inquiry of why people use substances. This has been widely argued over the old ages and has provided much research which has led to the creative activity of theoretical accounts of drug usage, the free will pattern, the disease theoretical account, the moral and the bio-psycho-social theoretical account. The ‘free will pattern ‘ properties freedom of pick as a major cause of substance usage, whereas the ‘disease theoretical account ‘ suggests familial sensitivity as a cardinal factor in substance usage. The moral theoretical account which is possibly the oldest theoretical account sees substance users as weak willed and aberrant. On the other manus, the bio-psycho-social theoretical account points towards the environment the individual grows up in with lending factors such as unemployment, poorness, low educational attainment and offense being associated with the grounds why a individual chooses to utilize substances and it is in the bio-psycho-social theoretical account where all these theoretical accounts and statements are encompassed. Harmonizing to Maisto and Krenek ( 2009:51 ) ‘Each set of factors entirely, biological, psychological or societal, is missing in its effort to supply a satisfactory account for substance usage upsets entirely ‘ . The bio-psycho-social attack takes into history the holistic demands in a substance user ‘s life and has been growingly used in the intercession and bar of debatable substance usage.
A farther challenge remains in the economic sciences of illicit substance supply. Wherever there is a demand there will be a supply and it is yet another job that bears to a great extent on the intervention of substance users.
In 2003/04 the size of the UK illicit drug market was estimated to be & amp ; lb ; 5.3 billion and Drug trafficking is considered to be the most profitable sector of multinational criminalism and to present the individual greatest organised offense menace to the UK. ( UK Drug Policy Commission, 2008 ) .
With such amounts of money, the intervention of substance users becomes really hard as the drug trade is frequently the accelerator for many to go involved in drugs. It can besides pin down substance users as their substance usage gets in the manner of them doing money and hence pushes them farther into debt and so this in bend, can increase the substance user ‘s consumption in order to emotionally get away the loads of debt and fright for unpaid debts which could perchance hold life endangering effects depending on the sum of debt and degree of engagement in the trade. Furthermore, engagement in the trade can take to effects such as harlotry, sod wars and pieces offenses, these effects impede the possibility of intervention as contact with the bench could take to a drawn-out prison sentence or perchance decease.
The challenges that stem from substance usage can besides attest themselves in the intervention procedure because while in intervention many users report legion jobs, with employment by and large being high on the list. This may be because ‘getting job drug users ready for employment and preparation and maintaining them in employment is hard and expensive ‘ ( National Audit Office, 2010 ) likewise, many of them may hold been imprisoned before and may hold accessed intervention installations within the prison, unluckily some of these drug users are freed without an aftercare program nor an advocated patterned advance path to employment with the aid of relevant professionals, Waller and Rumball ( 2004:297 ) reiterate this suggestion ‘the attempts of wellness and societal professionals is focused on hazard decrease, back uping captives through detoxification, medicine and instruction about the hazards of overdose ‘ . This evident focal point on the immediate demands is referred to as ‘crisis intercession ‘ and harmonizing to Ghodse ( 2010:177 ) ‘Is improbable to hold much rehabilitative value unless the staff win in mentioning the drug maltreater onwards to a longer term programme ‘ .
Drug related infections pose yet another challenge to intervention and is perchance one of the most destructive forces in footings of the manner the drug user perceives the demand for intervention because ‘The bulk of users who start shooting continue to make so throughout their calling ‘ Carnwath and Smith ( 2002 ) . And it is shooting unsafely which is blamed for many of the drug related infections found today. For legion drug users, a diagnosing of hepatitis C is considered manageable as modern medical specialties and interventions have become more effectual, nevertheless, it is with a diagnosing of hepatitis B or HIV ( Human Immunodeficiency Virus ) where apathy towards drug intervention can get down to attest and although these diseases are treatable and manageable, they have can hold serious psychological effects and do the drug user to get down sing such feelings as guilt, shame and choler which in bend, can take to more serious effects as Falvo ( 2005:249 ) argues ‘Guilt, self blame, fright of forsaking and fright of at hand painful decease can take to self destructive behaviors, including attempted self-destruction ‘ .
Further challenges for drug intervention prevarication in the attitudes of a society. Stigmatization from subdivisions of society is yet another barrier that substance users and intervention services likewise have to confront in the attempt to incorporate substance users back into society. Many people in society carry different positions on substance usage and attitudes can change depending on the country, the substance and the prevalence of substances in that country. Heroin, for illustration, is one of the most demonised drugs in the UK and has been since the 1980 ‘s, harmonizing to Robertson ( 1987:43 ) ‘Politicians, imperativeness and a proportion of the populace are consentaneous in their disapprobation of diacetylmorphine usage as the major, if non the greatest, societal immorality of our times ‘ . These negative attitudes and societal stigmatization frequently force the substance user to avoid accessing intervention because of the shame of their life style and it seems as though non much has changed in the attitudes of society as sentiments are still as negative, albeit among the populace. In a recent study by the UK Drug Policy Commission ( UKDPC ) , author Charly Lloyd explains society ‘s recent positions and the badness of such negative attitudes and the consequence it has on the legion facets of a drug user ‘s life-
‘The debris of society – unsafe, unpredictable and, crucially, merely holding themselves to fault is how society thinks of drug users and former users. The utmost stigma attached to drug dependence represents a monolithic obstruction to rehabilitation and recovery ; impeding entree to intervention, procuring work and lodging and rejoining society, and enduring for really long periods of clip ‘ .
Political political orientation and policy building are at the head in any treatments associating to substance usage and interventions. Many efforts have been made by authorities to hold the devastation that debatable substance usage can convey, nevertheless, many of those efforts have been badly criticised for deficiency of apprehension of the job and the reluctance to travel with the times in footings of substance usage. The 1980 ‘s conservative authorities is a typical illustration of this as there was panic because of the eruption of HIV and rapidly the authorities moved to cut down injury to the populace. This was a period when injury decrease patterns were brought in and were comparatively successful as Parker ( 2001:7 ) provinces ‘It was shown that secondary prevention- injury decrease enterprises can be really effectual direction tools particularly in regard of public wellness ends ‘ . However, this success in public wellness policy had all but been removed in the coming old ages with the focal point on wellness looking to vanish from the labour policies. The focal point on drug usage as condemnable, it appears, had become cardinal to labor policies which in bend led to a reconsideration of injury as a whole and put the incrimination entirely on the user. ‘Whereas harm decrease in the 1980 ‘s and early 1990 ‘s meant decrease of injury to the drug user, by the late 1990 ‘s it had come to intend injury, by the drug user, to those symbolic households and communities. ( Lart, 2008 )