Categories
Drugs

Biocon – Anticancer Drug Market Strategy in India

Biocon – Anticancer Drug Market Strategy in India.
 BIOMAb was an anticancer drug that was undergoing research by Biocon owned by Dr Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw in 2006. However, Mazumdar-Shaw was impressed with the degree of successfulness showed by the drug that she found that a decision had to be made immediately. The Drug Controller General of India – DCGI (similar to the FDA) was likely to give a go-ahead for the drug. The drug had completed Phase 2 trials, but if the DCGI gave its approval then phase 3 trials would likely to get affected. Hence, experts from the company felt that even if the drug got its nod, phase 3 trials to determine safety and efficacy should continue.

This was to gather strong evidence for the drug. Besides, the company had not prepared a marketing strategy for the drug (the pricing, sales, marketing personnel, channels, etc) was not yet decided. Biocon was initially an enzyme manufacturing company, initiated in 1978, but slowly moved into other areas. It entered biopharmaceuticals in 1996. This was because the global enzyme market was about $ 2 billion and even a 10 to 15% share of the market would not be sufficient for the company to take on growth. The global biopharmaceutical market is more than $10 billion and is likely to grow to $80 billion by 2016.

The company had two problems when moving from one field to another:- • It had to move from technology required for enzyme manufacturing to proteins. • The pharmaceutical market is highly regulated, and hence the company decided to launch generic versions of the drug to help understand the market. Biocon got approval to sell Levostatin in 2001 and sold the same through GenPharm. Within a few years, Biocon got a 15 to 20 % share of the statin market in the US. When Biocon wanted to enter the insulin market, it felt it had a few advantages over the others.
Indians represented 1/5th of the world diabetic population and Biocon had fermentation capabilities such that it could manufacture huge amounts of the insulin. It was successful at these endeavors and soon took on proprietary drugs especially oral insulin. It crossed the $1 billion mark in 2004. Identification of major problems & Opportunities BIOMAb is an anticancer drug used to treat head and neck cancers. The company had accidentally taken up the drug in 2002, when Mazumdar-Shaw decided to visit CIMAB during her spare time. This organization had been working with several anticancer drugs.
It had developed monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) that could attack the cancer cells, block specific cell receptors and prevent further growth of the tumor. CIMAB had conducted extensive research on BIOMAb through phase 1 trials, and Mazumdar-Shaw realized that there was a tremendous opportunity. The company had an opportunity to take the drug further through research, market the drug, and further launch it. However, there were also several problems associated with the same. This was concerning a new technology for mammalian cells and a company making fermentation enzymes; it was really a grey area.
The company had no idea of the financial investments or the technology involved. Biocon had no experience in selling or marketing a proprietary anticancer drug. Besides, it did not have any idea of the patients, physicians, specialists, etc. Approval was required through the regulatory bodies and clinical trials were not extensively conducted in India. Experts estimated that more than $ 25 million were required through investments, which included 25% for costing, 15% R&D, 25% marketing, and the remaining as profits.
In 2005, the Indian government agreed to implement the TRIPS agreement, which saw major changes in the Indian patent laws. Many companies were not happy with the Indian patent laws, as their IP rights were not adequately protected. Biocon idea was to help a research institute take their products through various phases of clinical trials. It wanted to help the company commercialize their drugs and market the drug in various parts of the world including India. This was a unique model that demonstrated great opportunities worldwide.
Biocon was able to obtain a license from CancerVax in 2004 to market three cancer drugs developed by CIMAB in various parts of the world. It saw tremendous scope for BIOMAb in India, and decided to conduct trials for head and neck cancers, as the prevalence was high. At the time when BIOMAb was launched into India, about 95% of the cancer patients had to buy their own healthcare and only a small percentage actually could afford BIOMAb. However, a positive side was that the Indian economy was growing at 9% per year & the Indian population at 1.
4%, and hence more and more people could slowly afford the drug. About 10% of the cancer patients were actually the customers to receive the drug. Biocon was also receiving tremendous competition from Erbitux, which was originally an anticancer drug meant for colorectal cancers, but considering its huge potential, Merck decided to test it out for head and neck cancers. Merck had got the approval for using the drug in head and neck cancers from the DGCI in 2006. BIOMAb did had not have phase-3 data (unlike Erbitux).
However, BIOMAb had shown a 100% success rate and there were lesser side-effects such as skin rash associated with BIOMAb. The alternative marketing courses of action The alternative course of action selected by Biocon was interesting and noteworthy. Biocon strategy seemed to be very strong – to help research organization to go ahead with trials, ensure commercialization of the products, along with sharing of the IPR. As the drug went from phase 1 to phase 3, the number of subjects were increased.
Phase 4 trials included researching the drug after it was marketed to obtain data about the side-effects, efficacy and long-term use. Since, it was a new molecule, several experts in the field of cancer were skeptical about giving the drug to patients. However, Biocon tied up with premier cancer institutes in India such as Kidwai Institute of Oncology and used the drug for phase 2 trials. Clinigene aided in researching the drug. The drug was combined with other treatment modalities and it was found that when administered with radiotherapy-chemotherapy combination it could 100% get rid of the cancer.
However, BIOMAb had to compete with Erbitux which was internationally reputed. Biocon also considered whether BIOMAb could be utilized for treating colorectal cancers and hence directly compete with Erbitux. If BIOMAb was launched after phase-2 trials, then Erbitux may have been preferred as it had completed phase 3 trials. There was also the idea of launching BIOMAb with other generic drugs simultaneously which could help the users to use the generic version and get accomplished with the drug.
The company had problems deciding to price the drug. If it was set below the price of Erbitux, then it would lose its credibility and in case it was higher, it would not be affordable for the Indian public. Hence, it chose a two-tier pricing system for India so that certain people from the lower socioeconomic groups could even afford the drug and use it. There were two supply chains for BIOMAb, one through the traditional manufacturer-wholesaler-pharmacy and the other a doctor/hospital-pharmacy relationship.
Biocon provided much more services than merely drug supply to the patient, considering the fact that cancer was a fatal disorder and the patient and family needed support (such as web site information, consumer helpline, direct consumer advertising, education and awareness through sales representatives, etc). The medical representatives were spending a time educating the patients and their families about the drug. The company used its resources for various useful purposes. References Gupta, S. and Narayan Das (2008). “Biocon: Launching a New Cancer Drug in India. ” Harvard Business School.

Biocon – Anticancer Drug Market Strategy in India

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

Effects Drugs Have on Urban Communities

Effects Drugs Have on Urban Communities.
{draw:rect} Did most urban communities start out as nice as most suburban communities are today? Yes, they did. The government built subsidized housing complexes for low income households; today they are called “the projects” or the ghetto. These communities have been run down over the years by vandalism, and crime, most of these criminal activities that take place in these urban communities are drug related. Even though drugs can be bought out of any community, the urban communities are the most effected by drug activities. Drugs are destroying the urban communities.
Children can buy drugs off almost every street corner and most of the youth in the urban communities are or have been in jail for drug sales. {draw:frame} Crime rates have gone up in urban communities because of drug activities. Every day an article can be read in the newspaper about crimes in urban communities. Most of these crimes are drug related. The drug dealers that are on the streets get busted for selling drugs almost every day and charged with sale charges and possession charges. Police departments set up sting operations to catch these dealers in the act.
Addicts are arrested daily as well. They get caught with drugs they have purchased and receive possession charges. Drug dealers often rob each other for their supply,which results in breaking and entering charges, burglary charges, and sometimes even murder charges. Addicts tend to steal and rob to support their habit and usually get caught and arrested for these crimes. Drug addicts will rob stores, strangers in the street, even family members to get money for their drugs. That is not the only crimes addict commit.

While under the influence of drugs some people commit acts they normally would not do, such as killing, stealing, or driving which could result in people getting hurt. They get high and do things without thinking. With all these problems in the urban communities, it becomes difficult to sell property at its book value. It becomes an undesirable place to live. People who are looking for reasonable priced housing get discouraged because of the environment that surrounds these houses. Nobody wants to live in these areas with all the drug related crimes and drug activities that go on.
These issues cause the property values to go down in urban communities. Below is a bar graph to show the difference in property values between urban communities and suburban communities. Average Property Values {draw:frame} Even though drugs can be bought out of any community, the urban communities are the most effected by drug activities. Drugs are destroying the urban communities. Children can buy drugs off almost every street corner and most of the youth in the urban communities are or have been in jail for drug sales.
I think if the public paid more attention or cared a little more about the drug related problems that are over powering our urban communities, these communities can be taken back from the criminals that have run them down so bad that they are so obsolete in the government’s eyes. Then maybe instead of spending thousands of dollars into communities that don’t really need it, that money could get put to good use in an urban community that really needs improvement. Hernandez, R. (2010). VCStar. com. Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group. Retrieved from http://www. cstar. com/news/2010/feb/09/suspect-went-on-drug-related-crime-spree-tells/ Jonathan Butler. (2004). BROWNSTONER. Retrieved from http://www,brownstoner. com National Drug Intelligence Center. (January 1, 2006. ). National Drug Intelligence Center. Retrieved from http://www. justice. gov/ndic/pubs5/5140/index. htm Secretary of the Publications Board. (2010). United nations. Retrieved from http://www. un. org/esa/socdev/poverty/subpages/iyephab. htm The world bank group. (2010). Urban poverty. Retrieved from http://: http://go. worldbank. org/QH7WZFCPK0

Effects Drugs Have on Urban Communities

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

The President’s National Drug Control Strategy

The President’s National Drug Control Strategy.
The National Drug Control Strategy was announced by the Bush administration during the first quarter of 2002. It is believed that the strategy was devised because of the perceived loss of “the national will to fight against substance abuse. ” This perception resulted from a dismal situation recently occurring in the country. For instance, the findings of the “Monitoring the Future Survey” which was conducted by the University of Michigan showed that 26 out of 100 eight grade pupils admitted to trying illegal drugs at one time or another.
In addition to this sad reality, it was observed that many drug dependents in the United States do not get the treatment required to help them get rid of their addiction. Faced with such a grim state of affairs, President Bush declared his belief that “the time has come to re-energize the national movement against illegal drugs …[by making up] lost ground in the fight against drugs by applying the lessons of our recent history – emphasizing a balance between supply and demand reduction effort” (U. S. Office of the Press Secretary, 2002). It is clear, therefore, that the President’s intention is not only to reduce the use of illegal drugs in the country by reducing the number of drug dependents, but also to trim down the supply of drugs entering the country. To achieve this twofold objective, the strategy was based on the following principles, namely: “stopping drug use before it starts; healing America’s drug users; and disrupting the market” (U. S. Office of the Press Secretary, 2002).
The strategy maintains that in the struggle against illegal substances, every citizen has a vital role to play in “stopping drug use before it starts. ” This could be undertaken through education as well as community-wide efforts. Specifically, the strategy emphasizes that everybody should be an advocate for responsible citizenship. In other words, wherever he or she is, e. g. in the home, in schools, in his or her church, or in the place where he or she works, a standard should be set to reaffirm this value.

In this connection, every individual should do everything to convince everybody to reject the idea that the decision to use illegal drugs is an individual freedom. In the home, the parents are expected to instill in the minds of their children that illegal drugs is evil and would destroy them and their future. The educators should also teach the same value in schools while church authorities are counted on to preach the devastating effects of drugs (U.
S. Office of the Press Secretary, 2002). To backstop the efforts of schools and the community, the Office of the President granted an additional $10 million to expand the operations of the “Drug-Free Communities Support Program” of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), aside from creating a “Parents Drug Corps” with a budget of $5 million (U. S. Office of the Press Secretary, 2002).
In addition, increased funding were also provided to other ONDCP projects, namely: $25 million to the drug testing of students for the year 2003 (a whopping increase of $23 million); $145 million to the anti-drug information efforts of the “National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign” for its 2005 expansion which would “include information for teens and parents to promote early intervention against drug use. ” The media campaigns are aimed at changing the beliefs prevailing among American teenagers concerning drugs.
Meanwhile, the ONDCP said that the additional $10 million budget for the “Drug-Free Communities Program” would be able to finance an additional 100 community coalitions who would work for the prevention of drug abuse among young Americans, especially in depressed areas of the country (U. S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004). The strategy also aims to “heal America’s drug users. ” To accomplish this goal, the budget for the “Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)” for the year 2003 was set at $2. 35 billion, increasing it to $2. 49 billion for 2004, and $2. 4 billion for the year 2005. Of particular interest is the increase of more than $100 million in the 2005 budget of the SAMHSA—Access to Recovery (ATR) program. According to the ONDCP, this will provide financial assistance to drug dependents who wish to avail of “clinical treatment or recovery services” on a case-to-case basis (U. S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004). Extending additional assistance to drug dependents would be complemented with the creation of “a new climate of ‘compassionate coercion’” to get drug abusers to enter the government’s treatment programs.
Compassionate coercion would be carried out with the help of the criminal justice system and the circle of family and friends of the drug abusers. According to the President’s strategy, it is now time to “confront drug use – and therefore drug users – honestly and directly” and every effort should be exerted to urge abusers to “enter and remain in drug treatment” (U. S. Office of the Press Secretary, 2002). The drug courts program of the Office of Justice Programs was likewise granted an increase of $32 million from its 2004 budget, raising its 2005 funding to $70. million. According to the strategy, this funding increase would improve the chances of success of the drug court programs by widening the scope as well as increasing the quality of the services provided by drug courts. The strategy explained that the drug court programs are serving as alternative solutions to imprisonment which utilizes the “coercive power of the court to force abstinence and alter [the] behavior” of drug dependents (U. S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004).
In other words, under the strategy, the criminal justice system is interested more in treating and rehabilitating drug abusers rather than putting them behind bars. To further enhance the capability of the criminal justice system in the task of treating and rehabilitating drug abusers, the President’s National Drug Control Strategy also increased the budget of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) from $960. 9 million in 2003 to $990. 8 million for 2004 and more than $1 billion for the year 2005.
NIDA is the agency which is tasked with conducting research activities concerning the problem, specifically “on the nature of addiction, development of science-based behavior interventions, medications development, and the rapid translation of research findings into practice. ” This initiative clearly spells out one of the most important roles of law enforcement in the drug policy of the president: that of treating and rehabilitating drug dependents (U. S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004).
Another, equally important role being played by law enforcement in the drug strategy of the president is that of “disrupting the market and attacking the economic basis of the drug trade,” thereby reducing, if not entirely eliminating, the supply of illegal substance available in or entering the country. For this purpose, at least six government agencies were enlisted, namely: the “Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF); the Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the Department of State” (U. S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004). “Disrupting the market” means that law enforcement agencies have both domestic and international missions.
In the domestic scene, they are tasked not only with arresting drug suppliers and rounding up drug abusers, but also with intensifying the security of our borders to make the entry of drugs more difficult. In the international level, law enforcers are directed to seek out and destroy the supply of drugs in the countries of origin like Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and other countries (U. S. Office of the Press Secretary, 2002). The strategy considers reducing or eliminating the supply to be of paramount importance because less supply would mean that the substance would become more expensive and thus less available to Americans. For this reason, law enforcement agencies has been focusing not only on the “agricultural sources” of these illegal substances but also on their organizational set-ups, the transportation systems of suppliers and distributors, their “financing mechanisms” and their processing methods.
Adequate knowledge of these things would enable American law enforcement agencies to destroy the drugs at source and easily intercept those that producers are able to ship out of their bases of operations (U. S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004). The President’s National Drug Control Strategy should be regarded with respect not only because of its awareness of the importance of treating and rehabilitating drug abusers but also because it has correctly pointed out that the complete elimination of the sources of illegal substances is one of the keys to the elimination of the drug problem in the country.
The effectiveness of the strategy could be measured in terms of the reduction in the number of drug users and dependents in the country and the reduction or elimination of the supply of illegal substances in the market. Reducing the number of users without eliminating the supply of illegal substances would never be effective since new users and abusers would always crop up.

The President’s National Drug Control Strategy

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

ADHD Medication: Should Antihypertensive Drugs Be Used?

ADHD Medication: Should Antihypertensive Drugs Be Used?.
Throughout the 1980’s, several published research papers suggested that antihypertensive drugs can be used to effectively manage ADHD symptoms, particularly hyperactive behavior and violent tendencies. It was found that anti-hypertensive drugs clonidine and guanfacine can improve the brain’s use of dopamine and inhibit the production of too much norepinephrine. Clonidine was also discovered to be better than stimulants at reducing hyperactivity, impulsivity, and mood swings. But are these ADHD medications necessarily safer than stimulant drugs?
There are many kinds of drugs that reduce blood pressure through different mechanisms. Some reduce the vigor of heart contractions while others lower the amount of fluid in the blood. The anti-hypertensive medications for ADHD lower blood pressure by affecting the nervous system. To be specific, they prevent the release of norepinephrine, the neurotransmitter that boosts heart rate when the body’s fight or flight response gets activated. By inhibiting norepinephrine’s release, the medicine can calm down a hyperactive child.
It’s very likely that the desirable effects of anti-hypertensive drugs are due to its sedative properties; drowsiness and fatigue are two of the most common side effects of clonidine. Studies also show that these medicines do not improve short attention ps and productivity. To combat this, there was a trend where doctors prescribed anti-hypertensives with the stimulant methylphenidate, found in the popular ADHD drug Ritalin. Unfortunately, this practice resulted in the death of several children.

Although a medical investigation was unable to come up with evidence that the deaths were due to these drugs, many prominent doctors started questioning the value of treating ADHD with antihypertensives and methylphenidate, considering that its long-term effects and safety are poorly studied. When used alone, anti-hypertensive medications may have some potentially worrisome side effects. Since these drugs are designed to prevent hypertension, the drug may cause low blood pressure and interferes with heartbeat, which may increase the risk of heart conditions.
Its sedative effects can also impair thinking and slow down motor skills, which pose safety problems for ADHD sufferers who drive or operate heavy machinery. On the other hand, anti-hypertensive medications do not have the addictive potential of stimulants and will not cause heart failure by itself. Of all the medications used to treat ADHD, anti-hypertensives seem to have the least dangerous risks. However, these risks are very real and still have the potential to be life-threatening. Consider the pros and cons very carefully before deciding to treat your child’s ADHD with proper medicinal remedies.

ADHD Medication: Should Antihypertensive Drugs Be Used?

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

A Comparison between Drug Policy as Social Control

A Comparison between Drug Policy as Social Control.
Nicolas Beltran English 101 /Ms. Jackson March 13 2012 While reading “Drug Policy as Social Control” by Noam Chomsky and “Crito” by Plato I noticed a similarity between the two. People in higher power have ways of stabilizing populations. The government is customized to make people fail and the less fortunate are targeted. The inequalities of the government aren’t dealt with but they surely do exist. Law’s are strictly enforced to populations where mostly black males live and populations where crime rates are high. Not all people have to deal with the law the same way due to social class.
The government has it’s own way of controlling people who are thought to be dangerous. How does the government control people? The government is able to put fear in the hearts of people. Governments have tried to take away programs which help people who are struggling. People worry about public assistance such as welfare because they need it and the government uses the poor populations weakness to their advantage. The government has it’s own way of silencing people who they feel might be a threat to people in higher power like Socrates.
Socrates from “Crito” had information that might have endangered the government. That is the main reason why he was sentenced to prison. Both Socrates and Martin Luther King served time in jail. Neither of them were a threat to their communities. They were wise men who both were the voice of their community’s. The government seen them as dangerous so they were killed. This is why I believe the governments selected method of keeping things stabilized is unfair to the thought to be dangerous population. Countries are unfair when it comes to giving everyone equal rights.

There are people who are superior to the law. Did you notice not one sentence in “Drug Policy as Social Control” said anything about targeted rich or white people ? I wonder why no upper class people are being arrested. No one is perfect and we know the poor and dangerous aren’t the only people who get their hands on drugs. Many people get away with illegal transactions but they fly under the radar because they are rich. The upper class people do the same things the less fortunate populations are doing by taking and selling drugs but are less likely to be imprisoned.
In “Drug policy as Social Control its specifically says “none of this has anything to do with drugs”. The main purpose in the so called drug control is to criminalize dangerous black populations. Our country is known to give people equal rights and freedom. It isn’t as it appears as you can see our country has favorites and the poor are targeted. While the upper class seems more united the government makes the poor hate each other. The way the government works the less fortunate are setup to fail.
Job opportunities are decreasing and so are job wages. There are less support systems for the people who need them. The Percentage of poverty is increasing while the rich get all the attention as their wealth keeps growing. In “Drug Policy as Social Control” it says, “ If we wanted to stop drug use in the United States there’s an easy way to do it”. This means that the government can prevent drugs from getting into the country but they don’t because it helps them control populations by using drugs to criminalize black men.
Where is the justice in this method of controlling people ? In my opinion this is a setup. These problems continue occurring in our country but there is no change. The voices of dangerous populations will continue to be controlled by the government. Hopefully one day poor and thought to be dangerous communities will not be recognized as what they are thought to be. The voices of these communities have been silenced for thousands of years, so has Jesus Christ. All these leaders have died for what they believed in.

A Comparison between Drug Policy as Social Control

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

National Social Issue: Drugs and substance

National Social Issue: Drugs and substance.
The problem of drug and alcohol abuse among youngsters has become a social and concern of national importance that merits closer attention and demands significant thrust and efforts by parents, teachers and government. This problem of drug and alcohol abuse takes especially severe implications in case of youngsters due to their greater vulnerability in becoming confirmed addicts of these substances ( Langfield, MacIntyre and Turner, 2006).
Statistics from Office of national drug control policy point out that over half the students in USA over half the students in USA try out at least one illegal drug before passing out high school, and around two third of them have at least drunk once (Fact Sheets). It’s also reported that use of illicit drugs and alcohol among American youngsters is highest in the industrialized world (Haier, Maddi and Wadhwa, 1996).
Causes of substance abuse

Adolescents turn towards drugs and alcohol due to a number of reasons that include disturbed family background, history of substance abuse in the family, pressures from peers and friends, as a reflection of prevailing social trends and some times just for experimentation purpose (Prichard and Payne, 2005). Their peers or friends, public trends, and general acceptance of limited drug use that is considered social and normal initiate a large number of teenagers to substance abuse.
Youngsters are indeed under great pressure to use drugs due to pressure from their immediate social interaction, and because drug use is seen as sign of growing up. In this regard, reports and surveys have strongly indicated that once youngsters understand the dangers associated with drug abuse, there is a significant reduction in drug abuse among them.
Many youngsters turn to drug abuse feeling they are invincible before drugs and thereby get entrapped in the vicious circles of alcohol and drug addiction (Prichard and Payne, 2005). Generally youngsters are initiated in the drug cycle with a relatively less dangerous but highly addictive drug marijuana. Later on they are motivated to use more dangerous and potentially life threatening drugs such as crack, cocaine, and heroine, making them completely depended on drug. Increasing instances of substance abuse also finds hand of organized drug mafia whose business depends on increasing the size of their spread by popularizing the concept that drug use is common and therefore acceptable (Cherry, Dillon and Rugh, 2002)..
Effect of Substance Abuse
Dependence upon drugs abuse creates a whole set of medical, social, and psychological problems for the youngsters that adversely affect their normal development and growth path while creating an equally traumatic experience for their parents and peers. The persistent use of drugs and alcohol cause depression, moods swings, sudden volatile behavior, seizures, lack in concentration, lack in coordinated speech and behavior, stupor and increased suicidal tendency in the adolescents (Prichard and Payne, 2005).
Other problems related to drug and alcohol abuse are disrupted family life, self isolation and seclusion, disruption in functioning of central nervous system, and renal and hepatic failures (Haier, Maddi and Wadhwa, 1996).  Heavy drug abuse leads to permanent damage to brain tissues, cause lasting depression, irritability, mood swings, inability to take decisions, reduction in cognitive and intellectual abilities, isolation from family and friends, increase in suicidal tendency, coma and even death.
Remedy of substance use
The problems related to drugs and alcohols are systematic, long term and need consistent monitoring, support and treatment, something that is only possible in the family setup (Langfield, MacIntyre and Turner, 2006). Individual treatment is seldom effective as its effects are short termed and in the absence of any preventive motivation and check adolescents tend to fall back to the use of drugs and alcohol.  Therefore the problem requires a systematic, comprehensive and all out approach to attack its foundation. The government, in coordination of society needs to evolve policies and programs that prevent youngsters from being initiated into the drug use (Rivers and Shore,1997).
An important step in this effort is to identify the youngsters who have already used/abused drug once and ensuring that they are not led to further abuse of drugs and/or alcohol. In this regard, federal student drug testing program is a major initiative that aims to make students aware of their own drug abusing habits without exposing them or embarrassing them before their friends and family members (Rivers and Shore,1997).
The mission should also aim to spread awareness against performance enhancement drugs in sports academies and sporting teams, as these drugs encourage students to take illegal drugs at later stages. This priority should also focus on making younger people aware of better health options, educating them on full range of dangers associated with drug abuse, the permanent debilitating effect of drugs like cocaine, marijuana and heroine on their family relation, health, career and entire life (Haier, Maddi and Wadhwa, 1996).
The program must aims at launching a comprehensive media program to educate youngsters on all the aspects of drug abuse. It also includes the intention to induce help from families, schools, sports coaches, teachers and community leaders in to reinforce the message that drug use is extremely harmful, dangerous and leads to irreparable loss (Cherry, Dillon and Rugh, 2002).
The substance abuses prevention policy should further aims to use public health infrastructure to intervene in the initial period of drug abuse. An integrated aspect is to use medical institutions as a screening procedure and providing treatment to every one, whether they can afford institutional treatment or not. The program should also includes patients risk assessment by physicians to estimate their potential of drug abuse (Haier, Maddi and Wadhwa, 1996).
The final priority in program should be concerned with attacking the well structured and deeply rooted drug trade by targeting foundation of drug business, such as agricultural production of many drugs, their transportation and distribution network, its organizational and hierarchical system and its transportation system (Cherry, Dillon and Rugh, 2002). This strategy promises impressive results with certain elimination of major drug cartels, elimination of cocaine trade and make significant progress in bringing down the size of organized drug market. In this regard United Sates is committed to closely interact with international community to share information and collectively act against the drug trade.
Reference
Andrew Cherry, Dillon, M.E, Rugh, D. 2002. Substance Abuse: A Global View. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT.
Haier, R.J. Maddi. S.R. Wadhwa. S.R. 1996. Relationship of Hardiness to Alcohol and Drug Use in Adolescents. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. Volume: 22. Issue: 2.
P.A. Langfield, M. MacIntyre and J.G. Turner. 2006. Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Abuse. 27.02.2007. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/10216.html
Prichard J.  and Payne J. 2005. Alcohol, Drugs and Crime: A study of Juvenile in Detention. Australian Institute of Criminology. 27.02.2007. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/67/06_chapter2.html#1
P. Clayton Rivers and Elsie R. Shore. 1997. Substance Abuse on Campus: A Handbook for College and University Personnel.Greenwood Press.Westport, CT.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

National Social Issue: Drugs and substance

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

Impact of Illegal Drug Use Among Teens

Impact of Illegal Drug Use Among Teens.
For over one hundred years, the United States has been dealing with the use and abuse of illegal drugs. The federal government has spent billions of dollars since 1906 trying to stop the production, distribution, possession and use of drugs. The war on drugs has been long and costly with minimal progress made. Although the use of illegal drugs among teenagers has reduced, their abuse of prescription drugs has risen substantially. Drug use is a very serious problem among school age and college-age individuals and is present on every campus across this country.
Even though the war on drugs is ongoing, the government’s efforts to reduce drug trafficking has had little effect on the use or abuse of illegal drugs among teenagers. Drug abuse continues to plaque our nation, causing destruction along its path, there seems to be no escape from this alarming trend. The most important challenge for drug policy is to reverse these dangerous trends. Illegal drugs are easily accessible; they are in our homes, schools, businesses and even in the jails and prisons. They affect most people in this nation in some form or another, whether abusing them themselves or knowing someone who does or has abused them.
The use of drugs early among teens is especially dangerous, and often lead to unproductive, unhealthy behavior. Involvement in criminal justice system, juvenile delinquency, premature sexual activity (which exposes them to sexually transmitted diseases and increase the risk of unwanted pregnancies), are all associated with the use of illegal drugs. The staggering cost for unnecessary health care, auto accidents, crimes resulting from drug use and extra law enforcement has caused even more damage to an already failing economy.

If the government is to move forward in its attempt to fight the war on drugs, it has to create effective drug policies and develop better programs to stop the onset of initial drug use. Informing today’s youth about the dangers of illegal drugs will prove far more beneficial than simply using scare tactics with harsher penalties. A key component in the fight to save the children from drugs is effective drug education. The Narconon drug curriculum will teach them why they should say “NO”, by helping them understand the lasting damage of drugs.
In tackling the teenage drug problem, first, we have to determine what some of the risk factors are that may have led them down that path from the beginning. How a child interacts in various settings like at school, with teachers, their peers, siblings, parents and in their neighborhood can play a crucial role in their emotional, social and cognitive development. If they begin to act out in the class, fail classes, have poor social coping skills, begin to associate with the wrong crowd and change in overall perception about things they know are wrong like lying, drugs, crimes, etc.
These are all red flags and should be investigated and addressed immediately. You have to try talking with them or taking them to see a professional to find out what is wrong, if possible, change their environment, place them around positive peers, get them involved in sports, church, social clubs. Do whatever it takes to prevent things from spiraling out of control, utilize all your resources. Try to let the child know you are there and that you care about what they are going through, this could make all the difference, in whether or not you reach them.
If parents read, educate themselves of the dangers in using drugs, then and only then will they be able to teach their children how to getting involved in drug use. To compile enough research for a well-rounded paper sites like; the Office on National Drug Control Policy, National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Internet, ProQuest, and the Ashford Online Library were used. These sites along with others sources contained an abundance of information, enough data to create an informative paper.
This research pointed out the social and health cost of illicit drug use, and further identified that drug-related illness, death and crime, cost the nation over one hundred billion dollars a year. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reports, of the 263,871 emergency department visits by adolescents age 12-17, nearly one tenth (8. 8 percent) involved suicide attempts, almost three of every four (72. 3 percent) were females. Of the 95. 4 percent drug-related suicides pharmaceuticals were involved and more than three-fourths (77. 0 percent) ended with follow-up care (SAMHSA, 2008).
The greatest cost of all drug abuse is paid in the lost of human lives, either directly through overdose, or drug abuse-related diseases such as tuberculosis, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and hepatitis. (NIDA & NIAA, 1992). It was important to conduct this research to make readers aware of just how bad society is failing the youth of this nation. The United States government cannot do it by itself. This is a national problem and it is going to take a nation to solve it, everyone has to help or this fight will be forever lost.
After an almost ten- year decline, marijuana is on the rise again among teens. High school seniors reported that they smoked pot more than cigarettes according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse recent “Monitoring the Future” survey. While 21. 4% admitted to using marijuana in the last 30 days, only 19. 2% smoked cigarettes during the same time frame. This was the first time since 1981 that pot was used more than cigarettes in that age group. Although the public health campaigns to reduce cigarette smoking among teens consider this a victory, its decline can mainly be contributed to the rise of marijuana use.
Many kids seem to feel that smoking pot is simply “not that big of a deal”, after all, it is only pot; even eighth graders do not believe the risk is that great. This type of attitude explains why there is a 1% increase of daily use for eighth graders and a 3% increase for tenth graders and is an indication that marijuana use will likely continue to climb as these kids move closer to graduation. About one out of four seniors and one in four tenth-graders said they smoked marijuana in the last year.
Obama administration’s drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, blames state medical marijuana measures like California’s Proposition 19 for making pot seem less dangerous to young Americans. “Calling marijuana ‘smoked medicine’ is absolutely incorrect, young people have taken the wrong message” (Healy, 2010, p. A-10). According to the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, because teenager’s brains are still developing the increased daily use of marijuana is particularly disturbing, since it has been known to cause learning and memory damage.
The fact that they use marijuana more frequently puts them at a greater risk of becoming dependent on it and other drugs. The use of the club drug Ecstasy has increased among eighth- and tenth graders but not all drugs showed an increase. The abuse of the prescription pain medication Vicodin was down to 8% compared to 9. 7% in 2009 and the illicit use of opioid painkiller OxyContin rose among tenth-graders but remained steady with twelfth- graders. The use of drugs prescribed for attention deficit disorder, (ADHD) for non- medical reasons in the last year among high school seniors is 6. % and is about the same for amphetamines use (Healy, 2010). One of the latest growing teenage trends, which centers on the sampling of a variety of prescription drugs and then drinking alcohol is causing much concern. Kids feel that prescription drugs are safer than street drugs, because they are prescribed by a doctor and are usually purchased in a drug store.
This is simply not true; they actually are more powerful which makes them even more dangerous especially when adding alcohol to the mix. Nora Volkow, says, “Kids are not pharmacologists, they may say, Fentanyl OxyContin- what’s the difference? So they take a bunch of things and may combine them with alcohol, that is a deadly miscalculation” (Jetters, A, 2010-2011, p. 146). To achieve feelings of euphoria, the amount of opioid painkillers needed is so close to the amounts that can kill you. If you add alcohol or tranquilizers like Klonopin, Valium, Xanax, which also depresses the brains respiratory center. Just one gin and tonic combined with a 40 mg methadone pill can be fatal. They are playing a very dangerous game of Russian roulette, one that they clearly do not understand.
When you think of drugs and how they got into the United States, most of us think about them coming from another country, like maybe Mexico or somewhere in South America. However, more now than ever we need look no further than our own medicine cabinets. The days of taking an aspirin or Tylenol for a headache, backache or toothache are long gone. We can now look in our medicine cabinets and choose from a variety of powerful leftover painkillers previously prescribed to us for various aches and pains. For over the past twenty years, four times the number of opioid prescriptions was written.
Doctors prescribed them at a rate of more than 180 million per year. By providing patients with enough medication to ease their pain, doctors believe it aids in the healing process and allows the patient to focus on getting well and not on the pain. This type of rationale may have caused doctors to over medicate, thereby prescribing painkillers for even the slightest pain. Painkillers like Vicodin, OxyContin, and Percocet are even prescribed to children that have barely reached adolescence. This may explain why they are the most abused pills among 12 and 13- year- olds (Jetters, A, 2010-2011, p. 148).
Dentist and oral surgeons are prescribing opioid for simple procedures like molar extractions. In addition, the kids are being sent home with way more pills than they need. Yes, kids feel pain just like adults however; doctors cannot simply prescribe these potent drugs and then forget how long and how many pills the kids are taking, that is a recipe for disaster. If your children are prescribed these or any medication for that matter, be sure to monitor their usage. You should count them and if there is cause for concern, take them and store them in a secure place under lock and key and dispense the correct amount to them yourself.
You must be sure to properly dispose of all expired or unused medication, take every precaution when doing so. Many experts are now advising people not to flush them in the toilet because it may pollute the water. If you throw them in the trash, place them in a bag mixed with cat litter, coffee grounds or anything that will discourage your kids from looking for them. Talk to other parents and family members, especially if your child visits their homes often; advise them to safeguard their prescription drugs as well. Check around your community to see if there is a prescription pill- drop off point.
More towns are sponsoring these sites to assist in disposal of medicines in hopes of possibly cutting back on teenage drug use. As parents, you must realize that you play a big role in how your children view prescription drugs and whether or not they will end up abusing them. Many teenagers believe that parents will be less concerned or upset if they are caught misusing prescription drugs because, after all they are legal. A clear message needs to be sent to them, letting them know that you do care if they illegally use prescription drugs just as you would if they abused any other illicit drug.
It is important that they know if they are in trouble they can come to you for help regardless of what the problem is, even drugs. Pill popping is so popular among kids because the high is not instantly detected like marijuana and alcohol. It is definitely easier to buy pills than beer, you do not have to wait for the store to open or need a person twenty- one over to purchase them. Pills and money are easily be exchanged by a handshake, at school or other public places without ever being noticed.
You do not need a bottle, can, glass, rolling paper, a match or a pipe; all you do is place that one small white pill in your mouth that is it. On the other hand, marijuana and alcohol both have very distinctive smells and are detected almost immediately. However, if he or she has taken prescription drugs you do not usually notice it right away unless their behavior has changed erratically. Although alcohol use maybe down, it remains popular among teens and cannot be taken lightly. Over the years, it has had a devastating impact on teenagers; more than eight young people a day die from fatal car crashes or re fatally injured due to alcohol- related accidents. Because so many households have alcohol, it is easy for children to begin drinking at an early age. The younger the child is when he begins consuming alcohol the more likely he is to increase his alcohol intake. The more he drinks the greater his chances are of using other drugs in the future, which is why alcohol along with marijuana has always been believed to be a gateway drugs. Parents should beware, more kids are trying whatever they can get their hands on to get high.
Isobutyl nitrite is a volatile liquid solid without a prescription for use as a room deodorizer but commonly used as an inhalant to produce a euphoric feeling (Peary & Schwartz, 1986). It causes dizziness, lightheadedness, blurred vision and pounding heart, these symptoms can make them really sick. Nevertheless, kids appear to believe this method of getting high along with experimentation with other drugs is the norm. As this research, progressed, other dangerous drugs were introduced, and now that we have learned more about them and the various ways they are being used; we are better equipped to help fight the war on drugs.
Informing the minds of our youth so they can reason more clearly on the subject of alcohol and other drugs is a vitally important way to curtail addiction down the road. Children who never start abusing drugs will never become addicts in need of drug recover. As the government continues its war on drugs, society must begin theirs. This great nation is equipped with a vast amount of resources to assist in this endeavor; therefore, every effort should be made to do whatever is necessary to ensure the youth of today will be around for tomorrow.

Impact of Illegal Drug Use Among Teens

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

Pshe and drug education

Pshe and drug education.
PSHE and Drug Education – why bother? Does it truly hold impact?
Introduction
“The nexus between educational criterions and the wellbeing of kids and immature people is good proven and PSHE Education offers a important path to beef uping this relationship.”

DCSF and Ofsted, ( 2008 ) : Indexs of a School ‘s Contributions to Well-Being – audience papers, www.Ofsted.gov.uk/ofsted-home/consultations ( accessed June 28th 2009 )
“PSHE Education is progressively seen as a cardinal precedence for betterment for any effectual school and underpins effectual learning.”
Healthy Schools, ( 2008 ) , PSHE instruction Guidance, pg 51
With quotation marks like these from such influential national organic structures the educationally naive may be excused for presuming that PSHE ( Personal, Social, Health, Education ) enjoys a high profile and influential being throughout the English schools ‘ system, when – in my experience – the fact is that in many schools ; particularly secondary schools, it could non be much further from the truth. These positive and apparently radical sentiments as outlined by Ofsted and Healthy Schools must certainly go forth many of us inquiring why the topic of PSHE is frequently misunderstood and unmarked, as demonstrated in the undermentioned Ofsted determination.
“Too many schools do non establish their PSHE course of study sufficiently on the students ‘ assessed demands. The country recruits few instructors with straight relevant makings to learn PSHE. Many schools focus narrowly on measuring students ‘ cognition instead than finding the impact of their PSHE proviso on bettering students ‘ attitudes and skills.” Ofsted ( 2007 ) Time for Change pg
The recent Joint Area Review ( JAR ) study for the local authorization in which I work reflects national Ofsted findngs and provinces that the authorization should “Ensure that a high precedence is given to personal, societal and wellness instruction ( PSHE ) in schools” . ( **** )
The aforesaid quotation marks clearly illustrate the strife between identified ‘best pattern ‘ and ‘current pattern ‘ re-inforcing my ain professional experiences in the universe of PSHE.
These quotes merely nibble into the iceberg of struggle evident throughout the paradox of PSHE. Even the topic ‘s name can do confusion ; Personal, Social, Health Education ( PSHE ) in Primary schools, sometimes with the add-on of Citizenship, and Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education ( PSHE Education ) in our secondary schools. For the intent of this reappraisal I refer to the topic as PSHE. PSHE includes an array of subjects runing from healthy eating to the acknowledgment of feelings and emotions.
In my function of PSHE Curriculum Consultant with a remit for back uping the National Healthy Schools Programme ( NHSP – a Government funded Education and Health Initiative ) I read many publications and paperss produced by influential national organic structures such as the DCSF ( Department for Children, Schools and Families ) , Ofsted ( Office for Standards in Education ) , Healthy Schools and QCDA ( Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency – officially QCA ) . It is non until I reflect upon the overplus of documents and schemes published by these administrations that the common docket and alliance between them becomes evident.
The paperss and publications produced by the aforesaid organic structures form the footing of my professional function. The bulk of what I believe, say, do and advance can be traced back to these seminal publications. However when a senior member of a cardinal drug bureau in the Local Authority informed me that they do non put in Drug Education because although there is grounds to back up development in students ‘ attitudes and cognition, there is no grounds to back up that there is any positive behavioral alteration I was spurred on to look into further.
Throughout this piece of work I will be explicitly analyzing the function and topographic point of Drug Education both within and outside of PSHE. I intend to take a expression at some of the history, developments and doctrines which underpin Drug Education in the hope of detecting whether there is grounds to back up the belief that it can so hold a positive impact upon the attitudes and behaviors of immature peoplvitamin E. I will see how best pattern ; as promoted by Government organic structures supports and/or contradicts my findings. I endeavor to critically measure several of the most noteworthy Drug Education Programmes used in schools across the universe, foregrounding their chief characteristics, survey methods and consequences.
Background to Drug Education
Policies and political orientations environing Drug Education have emerged, declined, altered and developed over a figure of old ages. Some of the major mileposts around drugs and Drug Education have been ;
1988 Introduction of the National Curriculum,
1995 Government scheme Undertaking Drugs Together- with the add-on of Drug Prevention in Schools Drug Education Curriculum Guidance for Schools 4/95,
1998 Undertaking Drugs to Construct a Better Britain and the corresponding papers Dfee: Protecting immature people ; Good Practice in Drug Education in Schools and the Youth Service,
2002 Hidden Harm,
2004 Drugs: Guidance for Schools – which schools should be utilizing as their current mention stuff.
2008 saw the Drugs and Entitlement for all Review *****
The debut of the National Curriculum in 1988 ensured that Drug Education was on the instruction agenda – non prioritized through PSHE as it is today, but as portion of the Core Science Curriculum.
Drug Education has a checked history. Its focal point and precedences have been capable to alter depending upon political dockets – it is non difficult to understand that mensurating its impact is a complex undertaking.
Through the 1970s until the present twenty-four hours the major attacks taken towards Drug Education in the UK have been:

Scare tactics – the ‘just say no attack as made popular by the Grange Hill cast
Information based instruction which aims to give indifferent existent information about Drugs and Drug Education
Self authorization instruction which aims to hike self esteem, assertiveness and determination devising accomplishments, and increased belief in personal involvement and control
Situational instruction which acknowledges the societal context of and influences on personal picks around drug pickings
The cultural attack which favours a broader context of the life accomplishments learning, acknowledges the influences of the place communities and work and on lifestyle and behavior

O’Connor. L, O’Connor. D, Best. R ( 1998 ) pg 65
Even though many of these attacks are ‘out-dated ‘ and non deemed ‘best-practice ‘ they are frequently apparent in the schools in which I work, either used in isolation, but more frequently used in combination. Back in the early 1990s Swadi had already indicated that at that place needed to be a “rethink of bar schemes with a move off from the didactic instructional methods presently employed and the acceptance of a holistic attack towards the issue of wellness and behavior in adolescents.” ( Swadi. H, ( 1992 )
Approachs to Drug Education
D.A.R.E – America
Possibly one of the most well-known and widely used Drug Education programmes is the American DARE ( Drug Abuse Resistance Education ) . Established in 1983 DARE has subdivisions in many states including the UK. They province that the programme is implemented in over 75 % of America ‘s school territories and in 43 states around the universe ( see www.dare.com ) , although I could happen no independent grounds to back up this, my findings being shared with Skager. R Pg 578. Harmonizing to the DARE web-site students taking portion in their programme are 5 times less likely to get down smoke than students who had non taken portion in their programme. They go on to state that “DARE instructors kids how to defy peer force per unit area and unrecorded drug free productive lives” . Highly successful claims, nevertheless there are several self-contradictory issues which arise from this. Independent ratings of the original DARE programme found no grounds in intoxicant and drug usage decrease, with one survey demoing a higher prevalence among suburban young person. Lynman et Al ( 1999 ) have besides drawn similar findings. Skager continued to assume similar findings in a ( pg 578 of R skager ) 10-year followup of DARE students.
Interestingly DARE ‘s place of Drug Prevention goes against the UK Government Drugs: Guidance for Schools 2004 papers. DARE ‘s stance on taking ‘Drug free lives ‘ is basically floored in the drug taking society is which we live. Following this statement it could be that the publicity of ill-informed and misconceived Drug Prevention programmes such as DARE undermine other grounds based enterprises and UK Government funded preparation programmes and course of studies.
Interestingly DARE receives much of its support through the constabulary governments and from receives funding from “special mandates attached to measures passed by the congress.” Pg 578 R Shager. It is evaluated outside of any authorities control, which makes it progressively hard for people such as myself to give it a big sum acceptance.
Life Skills Training ( LST ) – America
Life Skills Training is another popular Drug Education Programme developed in America over the last 20 old ages and delivered through the school system. Although it considers itself to be a bar programme, it acknowledges the fact that its chief intent is to cut down prevalence. It is based on a multi-component design and incorporates information and cognition, normative outlooks, opposition schemes along with determination devising, job resolution and analyzing techniques, societal accomplishments, and schemes to acknowledge and get by with choler and defeat. This is really much in-tune with the UK ‘s current ‘best-practice counsel ‘ . Supporting the multi-component design is besides the belief that bringing should besides take a assortment of signifiers runing from didactic, to group treatments and presentations – all with a strong focal point on accomplishments developing. The programme is intended to be delivered by the category teacher although several suppliers have altered the programme theoretical account for it to be delivered by external suppliers or equal pedagogues. This draws a analogue to much of the work in which I am involved.
Several surveies have shown that the Life Skills Training method demonstrates success, non merely on students ‘ cognition and attitudes, but most significantly upon their drug related behaviors. In 1980 a smoke bar programme taking the LST attack demonstrated that there was a 75 % decrease in the figure of new coffin nail tobacco users ( vol24 pg 253 **** ) compared to the control group. However this was measured on immediate consequence, the programme took topographic point in merely one school together with a comparable control school. Long term surveies have taken topographic point demoing positive long-run effects of LST. A 6 twelvemonth randomized survey took topographic point with pupils from 56 public schools in New York. Schools were indiscriminately assigned to bar and control conditions. The instructors presenting the programme were trained and there was a structured programme which started in the 7th class. Consequences showed that 12th class students that took portion reported significantly reduced heavy smoke, along with fewer smoke in the last hebdomad, or during the last month. The survey demonstrated no effects upon imbibing frequence, but significantly fewer bar students reported acquiring rummy one or more times a month, compared with the control group. Fidelity to the programme was seen to be an of import factor.
Positive findings so, the attack supports much good pattern as stated in the Drugs: Guidance for Schools 2004 and is in-line with Healthy Schools recommendations, unluckily this is another illustration of a deficiency of independent research. Statisticss on findings were gathered and analyzed by a squad of researches that included Botvin – the originator behind the development of the LST attack. So can the findings truly show objectiveness? LST appears on several lists of ‘scientifically proven ‘ programmes which are validated by American Government organic structures. Ganghi et Al ( pg 579 replacing ineffective….. ) concludes that “few studies showed significant impact, and even fewer surveies showed significant impact at longer follow-ups” .
It ‘s My Choice – Norge
It ‘s My Choice undertaking is a multi-component school based Drug Prevention programme aimed at students from the ages of 6 – 15. Its primary aim is to act upon pupils at the primary school degree in a positive way in order to detain the age of coffin nail and intoxicant introduction. It takes an attitude-building attack which supports the impression that early influences can forestall kids and immature people from utilizing drugs. The theory underpinning the programme is that interior personal strength better enables immature people to do positive picks for themselves. LST promotes a spiraling course of study where content is tailored to run into the demands of students. The programme considers that the school ‘s attack to instruction influences the students ‘ attitudes and self -esteem and seeks to construct positively on this.
This is evocative of the UK Drug: Guidance for Schools 2004 which states that “Drug bar purposes to: …delay the age of oncoming of first use…Drug Education should …develop students ‘ personal and societal accomplishments to do informed determinations and maintain themselves safe and healthy, including: developing self-awareness and self-esteem….” ( pg 18 ) The UK Guidance for schools besides promotes a coiling attack and promote Drug Education non to been viewed in isolation but as portion of a whole school attack, where accomplishments are movable and inter-related, used – where applicable in a cross-curricular mode.
Although merely measured over the short-run consequences show that “70 % of pupils at the intercession schools say that they have ne’er tried intoxicant without an grownup nowadays, while the figure for the control schools is 40 % . 56 % of pupils at intercession schools say that they have ne’er been bullied, while the corresponding figure for the control schools is 28 % . 20 % of pupils from intercession schools say that they compliment others rather frequently, while the figure for the control schools was 6 % .” Web-site ******* . The consequences point to many positive effects of the programme including increased self-pride, empathy and a better relationship with the other pupils. Whilst this is no incontestable long-run grounds for decreased Drug usage, these accomplishments are clearly related to legion protective factors highlighted in Hidden Harm ( 2003? ) and could ensue in cut downing hazards to many kids and immature people.
Blue Print Programme
The Blue Print Programme was the largest and most recent multi-component, research-based Drug Education Study in England. Funded by the Home Office, The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills ( now the Department for Children, Schools and Families ) its purpose was to “design, present and measure an evidence-based drug bar programme.” ( pg 21 2007 stirling rating ) Prevention in this instance had been defined as “slowing the normal rate of addition in population-based usage prevalence rates of baccy, intoxicant, dissolvers and hemp during early adolescence, and cut downing the injury to self and others originating from the usage of these substances.” ( Reference a nexus to it for farther info )
Basically the programme aimed to:
“reduce the figure of immature people utilizing drugs ;
detain the oncoming of drug usage ;
minimise the injury caused by drugs ; and
enable those who had concerns about drug usage to seek help.”
At first glimpse the survey methods appear robust, with 30 schools ab initio taking portion ( one school subsequently dropped out ) 24 schools presenting the Drug Education programme and 6 comparing schools. Criteria for choice were set out and applied in a systematic manor. Selection besides took history of the Index for Multiple Deprivation. ( A more elaborate history of this can be found at pg 23 stirling study ) .
The constituents doing up the programme were:
Teacher preparation
15 ten 50 infinitesimal Drug Education Lessons ( 10 in Yr 7 and 5 in year 8 ) ,
Schools Drug Adviser support
Parent accomplishments workshops and stuffs including a parent magazine which was to promote communicating between parents and kids
Media coverage and support
A Health component which targeted retail merchants of intoxicant, baccy and dissolvers
A community constituent – which appears to hold been far less structured and focused than the other elements. There was no lead contractor for this portion of the programme and available information appears rather obscure.
A immense array of persons and bureaus were traping much hope upon the Blue Prints Programme. It had been developed utilizing a wealth of anterior information and research, it cost a batch of money ( reportedly around ?6 million ) and took many old ages to plan, implement and evaluate ; but it does look to hold had several floors from the beginning. Many people ( including myself ) were anticipating that this programme would supply a unequivocal manner frontward for Drug Education ; but it appears that from the really get downing it could merely of all time be an geographic expedition of trail conditions ; it could non be unequivocal. ( Raabet Al. 2002 ) concluded that a unequivocal trail should be made up of no fewer than 50 schools. A farther nail in the casket for those of us anticipating a unequivocal test, came from the Medical Research Council ( MRC ) counsel on the development of ratings of complex intercessions. This advises a “cumulative attack to understanding how results are achieved, traveling from theory, to patterning, to an explorative test to a unequivocal trial” ( MRC 2000 ) . This was highlighted by the stirling study in 2007, but was seemingly ‘missed ‘ in the original development of the programme.
Has the Blue Prints Programme progressed our apprehension of effectual Drug Education? If we are to portion the sentiments and feelings of several journalists such as Mark Easton ( 17th September 2009 ) we would certainly experience most heartsick confronting the fact that even Home Office scientists could ‘bungle ‘ research. This is an simplistic message to take from the findings, it surely makes for good headlines and keeps the faultfinders of this universe happy ; but it is non helpful in progressing our apprehension of effectual Drug Education. Ben Goldacre in his ‘Bad Science ‘ column in the Guardian 19/09/09 reinforces Easton ‘s stance and makes several converting points about similar issues saying that “There were besides offers of advice from experts in test design, such as Prof Sheila Bird of Cambridge University, who offered to assist them make a meaningful test on the available budget.” She wrote in an electronic mail to the BBC “ I/we thought the decision-making so obvious = NOT to travel in front that we did non assiduously follow-up to guarantee that the OBVIOUS determination was really made! ” Clearly insinuating that the undertaking was known to be floored *** from the start and that it should hold been altered or canned. If these sentiments and statements are right I find it difficult to understand why the Blueprints Programme continued the manner it did. I can merely swear in my ain perchance naif inherent aptitudes and believe that the Blueprints Programme began with the best of purposes.
Whatever the facts, the Blueprints Programme has given people in the universe of Drug Education aid with: the structuring of Drug Education Sessionss, issues around working with parents and the importance placed upon fidelity to the programme. The programme has raised the profile of Drug Education foregrounding the importance for more research and it really clearly underscore the errors from which we must larn.
I still grapple with the grounds for the evident ‘failure ‘ of the Blueprints Programme to present. To assist me farther understand the possibilities behind this I consideredLawrenceW. Sherman diary on ‘Drug – free schools ‘ . In this he suggests that authorities organic structures and representatives invest money in undertakings which are of concern to the general populace ( the wellness and wellbeing of kids and possible related drug use/misuse issues being a all right illustration of this ) but with no respect for any proved impact of the programme itself. By making this a authorities is able to show its compassion for the public, no-one is able to impeach politicians of being in-different to jobs in society and other political parties besides have their custodies tied to back up the undertaking as if they are seen to differ with the enterprise they are considered detached and un-supportive by the general populace.
An interesting place which would explicate the Blueprints failure to present. Sherman besides makes several other interesting observations. He points out that there is really small drug usage in schools, touching to the fact that most drug usage takes topographic point outside school premises and in the local community – which is true – but he fails to do the nexus that if an enterprise is proven to be ‘effective ‘ it is likely to hold positive impact upon the students and their community. This point is illustrated by Bruno V. Manno in his remarks on Sherman ‘s diary. Where he besides supports the position that “schools can lend to modifying the effects of outside influences and overcome household background factors and community liabilities.” etc pg 162
Decision
So after all this – should we trouble oneself with Drug Education in our schools? And does it hold any impact? I believe that the replies to these inquiries comes in 3 parts.
We want to see quantitative, longitudinal informations back uping all of our attempts in the universe of drugs and Drug Education and on this forepart, for me, the grounds is non yet strong plenty. Research workers must larn from the immense sum of universe broad surveies and work that has already taken topographic point.
There are many issues which need turn toing ; even after all my research my initial suggestions are rather basic. The first we need to be clear about is ; What constitutes Drug Education? Before any farther research can supply meaningful consequences we must make up one’s mind whether Drug Education is a programme incorporating a series of structured lessons which focus upon facts, accomplishments and attitudes around drugs, where fidelity plays an of import function, or whether it is bigger than this? There is grounds to propose that the size of a school, its direction system, behaviour direction processs, teacher pupil relationships, teacher parent relationships, support for the development of pupil self-esteem and general school environment ( as highlighted in the Norse It ‘s My Choice programme ) impacts upon whether or non immature people choose to take drugs. Research and the findings should hold a clear grade of independency as without this any programme is unfastened to doubt. We must be clear about what we mean when we say the word Drugs. Are Drugs the demonic substances which spring to the forepart of many people ‘s heads when the word is expressed, or are they substance which when taken “changes the manner a individual feels, thinks or behaves.” ******** Do we include tea, java, and paracetamols when looking at Drug Education? Do we see Drugs which people may necessitate to be healthy? Thought needs to be given to whether our personal experiences enable us to be able to present Drug Education in an effectual, value free mode? We besides need to research whether Drug Education with a preventive angle can of all time be value free? In fact, should it be wholly value free if we want future coevalss to do ‘healthy determinations ‘ , as this clearly comes with its ain docket.
Many of these realisations have been late highlighted in the 2008 Drug Review: An Entitlement for All where it makes several
recommendations to the Government, one being to “Promote a wider apprehension of the purposes of drug and intoxicant instruction among immature people, parents, carers, the kids ‘s work force and the wider media.” ( ***** ) , another is clarify the purpose of Drug Education. As it stands Drug Education and Drug Prevention are defined individually. If we are to use the current definition of Drug Education as suggested in Government Guidance it would clearly hold no impact upon pupil behavior. It would merely be when we looked into Drug Prevention where any relation to behaviour could be made. The Government have accepted all the recommendations made in the reappraisal and there is to be farther Govermnet Guidance disseminated as a consequence.
The UK takes a by and large positive and pro-active attack to Drug Education, this has been re-affirmed by my research and by sing attacks taken by other states. Drugs: Guidance for Schools is a comprehensive papers and is re-inforced by all of our Government, Educationally influential organic structures and the Police – current Government responses indicate that farther counsel will beef up bing certification. Since 1988 Drug Education has by and large developed, it has non radically changed. I think this can be demonstrated in the cosmopolitan diminution in the prevalence informations for kids and immature people ( appendix ** )
High outlooks are placed upon the shoulders of Drug Education, we must oppugn ourselves as to whether we are inquiring excessively much from one topic? ********
‘Expectations of the impact of effectual drug and intoxicant instruction in our schools are high, far higher than they are for most topics. The outlooks of drug and intoxicant instruction are that it will increase students ‘ cognition, change their attitudes and heighten their accomplishments every bit good as holding an impact on their behavior ‘ . ( Ofsted 2005 )

Pshe and drug education

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

Rights of Drug Administration

Rights of Drug Administration.
THE SIX RIGHTS OF DRUG ADMINISTRATION Right Drug Many drugs have similar spellings and variable concentrations. Before the administration of the medication, it is imperative to compare the exact spelling and concentration of the prescribed drug with the medication card or drug profile and the medication container. Regardless of the drug distribution system used, the drug label should be read at least three times: 1. Before removing the drug from the shelf or unit dose cart. 2. Before preparing or measuring the actual prescribed dose 3.
Before replacing the drug on the shelf or before opening a unit dose container (just prior to administering the drug to the patient) Right Time When scheduling the administration time of a medication, factors such as timing abbreviations, standardized times, consistency of blood levels, absorption, diagnostic testing, and the use of p. r. n. medications must be considered. 1. Standard Abbreviations—The drug order specifies the frequency of drug administration. Standard abbreviations used as part of the drug order specify the times of administrati0n.
The nurse should also check institutional policy concerning administration of medications. Hospitals often have standardized interpretations for abbreviations. The nurse must memorize and utilize standard abbreviations in interpreting, transcribing, and administering medications accurately. 2. Standardized Administration Times—For patient safety, certain medications are administered at specific times. This allows laboratory work or ECGs to be completed first, in order to determine the size of the next dose to be administered. 3.

Maintenance of Consistent Blood Levels—The schedule for the administration of a drug should be planned to maintain consistent blood levels of the drug in order to maximize the therapeutic effectiveness. 4. Maximum Drug Absorption—The schedule for oral administration of drugs must be planned to prevent incompatibilities and maximize absorption. Certain drugs require administration on an empty stomach. Thus, they are given 1hour before or 2 hours after meals. Other medications should be given with foods to enhance absorption or reduce irritations.
Still other drugs are not given with diary products or antacids. It is important to maintain the recommended schedule of administration for maximum therapeutic effectiveness. 5. Diagnostic Testing—Determine whether any diagnostic tests have been ordered for completion prior to initiating or continuing therapy. Before beginning antimicrobial therapy, assure that all culture specimens (such as blood, urine, or wound) have been collected. If a physician has ordered serum levels of the drug, coordinate the administration time of the medication with the time the phlebotomist is going to draw the blood sample.
When completing the requisition for a serum level of a medication, always make a notation of the date and time that the drug was at last administered. Timing is important; if tests are not conducted at the same time intervals in the same patient, the data gained are of little value. 6. P. R. N. Medications—Before the administration of any p. r. n. medication, the patient’s chart should be checked to ensure that the drug has not been administered by someone else, or that the specified time interval has passed since the medication was last administered. When a p. rn. medication is given, it should be charted immediately.
Record the response to the medication. Right Dose Check the drug dosage ordered against the range specified in the reference books available at the nurses’ station. 1. Abnormal Hepatic or Renal Function—Always consider the hepatic and renal function of the specific patient who will receive the drug. Depending on the rate of drug metabolism and route of excretion from the body, certain drugs require a reduction in dosage to prevent toxicity. Conversely, patients being dialyzed may require higher than normal doses. Whenever a dosage is outside the normal range for that drug, it should be verified before administration.
Once verification has been obtained, a brief explanation should be recorded in the nurses’ notes and on the Kardex 9or drug profile) so that others administering the medication will not be repeatedly contacted with the same questions. The following laboratory tests are used to monitor liver function: aspartame aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase and lactic dehydrogenase (LDH). The blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Crs), and creatinine clearance (Ccr) are used to monitor renal function. 2.
Pediatric and Geriatric Patients—Specific doses for some drugs are not yet firmly established for the elderly and for the pediatric patient. The nurse should question any order outside the normal range before administration. For pediatric patients, the most reliable method is by proportional amount of body surface area or body weight. 3. Nausea and Vomiting—If a patient is vomiting, oral medications should be withheld and the physician contacted for alternate medication orders, as the parenteral or rectal route may be preferred. Investigate the onset of the nausea and vomiting.
If itbegan after the start of the medication regimen, consideration should be given to rescheduling the oral medication. Administration with food usually decreases gastric irritation. Consult with a physician for changes in orders. Right Patient When using the medication card system, compare the name of the patient on the medication card with the patient’s identification bracelet. With the unit dose system, compare the name on the drug profile with the individual’s identification bracelet. When checking the bracelet under either system, always check for allergies, as well.
Some institutional policies require that the individual be called by name as a means of identification. This practice must take into consideration the patient’s mental alertness and orientation. It is much safer ALWAYS to check the identification bracelet. 1. Pediatric Patients—Never ask children their names as a means of positive identification. Children may change beds, try to avoid you, or seek attention by identifying themselves as someone else. Check identification bracelets EVERY TIME. 2. Geriatric Patients—It is a wise policy to check identification bracelets, in addition to confirming names verbally.
In a long-term care setting, residents usually do not wear identification bracelets. In these instances, only a person who is familiar with the residents should administer medications. Many errors may be voided by carefully following the practices just presented. Make it a habit to check the identification bracelet EVERY TIME a medication is administered. The adverse effects of administration to the wrong medication to the wrong patient and the potential for a lawsuit can thus be avoided. Right Route The drug order should specify the route to be used for the administration of the medication.
Never substitute one dosage form of medication for another unless the physician is specifically consulted and an order for the change is obtained. There can be a great variation in the absorption rate of the medication through various routes of administration. The intravenous route delivers the drug directly into the bloodstream. This route provides the fastest onset, but also the greatest danger of potential adverse effects such as tachycardia and hypotension. The intramuscular route provides the next fastest absorption rate, based upon availability of blood supply.
This route can be quite painful, as is the case with many antibiotics. The subcutaneous route is next fastest, based on blood supply. In some instances the oral route may be as fast as the intramuscular route, depending on the medication being given, the dosage form (liquids are absorbed faster than tablets), and whether there is food in the stomach. The oral route is usually safe if the patient is conscious and able to swallow. The rectal route should be avoided, if possible, due to irritation of mucosal tissues and erratic absorption rates.
In case of error, the oral and rectal routes have the advantage of recoverability for a short time after administration. Right Drug Preparation and Administration Maintain the higher standards of drug preparation and administration. Focus your entire attention on the calculation, preparation, and administration of the ordered medication. A drug reconstituted by a nurse should be clearly labeled with the patient’s name, the dose or strength per unit of volume, the date and time the drug was reconstituted, the amount and type of diluent used, the expiration date/ or time, and the initials or name of the nurse who prepared it.
Once reconstituted, the drug should be stored according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. • CHECK the label of the container for the drug name, concentration, and route of appropriate administration. • CHECK the patient’s chart, Kardex, medication administration record, or identification bracelet for allergies. If no information is found, ask the patient, prior to the administration of the administration of the medication, if he or she has any allergies. • CHECK the patient’s chart, Kardex, medication administration record for rotation schedules of injectable or topically applied medications. CHECK medications to be mixed in one syringe with a list approved by the hospital or the pharmacy for compatibility. Normally, all drugs mixed in a single syringe should be administered within 15 minutes after mixing. Immediately prior to administration, ALWAYS CHECK the contents of syringe for clarity and the absence of any precipitate; if either is present, do not administer the contents of the syringe. • CHECK the patient’s identity EVERY TIME a medication is administered. • DO approach the patient in a firm but kind manner that conveys the feeling that cooperation is expected. DO adjust the patient to the most appropriate position for the route of administration (for example for oral medications, sit the patient upright to facilitate swallowing). Have appropriate fluids ready before administration. • DO remain with the patient to be certain that all medications have been swallowed. • DO use every opportunity to teach the patient and family about the drug being administered. • DO give simple and honest answers or explanations to the patient regarding the medication and treatment. DO use a plastic container, medicine cup, medicine dropper, oral syringe, or nipple to administer oral medications to an infant or small child. • DO reward the child who has been cooperative by giving praise; comfort and hold the uncooperative child after completing the medication administration. • DO NOT prepare or administer a drug from a container that is not properly labeled or from a container where the label is not fully legible. • DO NOT give any medication prepared by an individual other than the pharmacist. ALWAYS check the drug name, dosage, frequency, and route ofadministration against the order.
Student nurses must know the practice limitations instituted by the hospital or school and which medications can be administered under what level of supervision. • DO NOT return an unused portion or dose of medication to a stock supply bottle. • DO NOT attempt to administer any drug orally to a comatose patient. • DO NOT leave a medication at the patient’s bedside to be taken “later”; remain with the individual until the drug is taken and swallowed. • DO NOT dilute a liquid medication form unless there are specific written orders to do so. BEFORE DISCHARGE: (1) Explain the proper method of taking prescribed medications to the patient. (2)Stress the need for punctuality in the administration of medications, and what to do if a dosage is missed. (3)Teach the patient to store medications separately from other containers and personal hygiene items. (4)Provide the patient with written instructions reiterating the medication names, schedules, and how to obtain refills. Write the instructions in a language understood by the patient, and use LARGE BOLD LETTERS when necessary. (5) Identify anticipated therapeutic response. 6)Instruct the patient, family member(s), or significant others on how to collect and record data for use by the physician to monitor the patient’s response to drug and other treatment modalities. (7)Give the patient, or another responsible individual, a list of signs and symptoms that should be reported to the physician. (8)Stress measures that can be initiated to minimize or prevent anticipated side effects to the prescribed medication. It is important to do this further encourage the patient to be complaint with the prescribed regimen.
Right Documentation Documentation of nursing actions and patient observations has always been an important ethical responsibility, but now it is becoming a major medicolegal consideration as well. Indeed, it is becoming known as the sixth right. Always chart the following information: date and time of administration, name of medication, dosage, route, and site of administration. Documentation of drug action should be made in the regularly scheduled assessments for changes in the disease symptoms the patient is exhibiting.
Promptly record and report adverse symptoms observe. Document health teaching performed and evaluate and record the degree of understanding exhibited by the patient. • DO record when a drug is not administered and why. • DO NOT record a medication until after it has been given. • DO NOT record in the nurses’ notes that an incident report has been completed when a medication error has occurred. However, data regarding clinical observations of the patient related to the occurrence should be charted to serve as a baseline for future comparisons.
Whenever a medication error does occur, an incident report is completed to describe the circumstances of the event. An incident report related to a medication error should include the following data: date, time the drug was ordered, drug name, dose, and route of administration. Information regarding the date, time, drug administered, and dose and route of administration should be given, and the therapeutic response or adverse clinical observations present should be noted. Finally, record the date, time, and physician’s ordered given. Be FACTUAL; do not state opinions on the incident report.

Rights of Drug Administration

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Drugs

Com156 – Prison Population of Drug Offenders

Com156 – Prison Population of Drug Offenders.
With the United States prison population growing, did you know that almost every citizen knows at least one person that is in prison? Every day there are 200 new jail cells that are constructed in the United States (ZHENG, SALGANIK, & GELMAN, 2006). With the highest rates of incarceration than any other country prisons are full in the United States of America, and yet we continue to build more space and spend more tax dollars on building more prisons. This is an ever-growing concern amongst American citizens whose tax dollars are going into this ever building problem.
Something needs to be done to change the course of this problem before it becomes bigger than it really should be, and we do have a few options to consider. More than a quarter of our countries prison population is incarcerated for drug offenses with sentences of anywhere from 1 to 30 years (Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, 2012). 30 years seems like a long time to spend citizen tax dollars on someone who did nothing violent towards another and was only hurting themself with the lifestyle that they chose to live.
Our prison systems could potentially be more effectively used by focusing more on incarcerating drug users based on the violent offenses they commit rather than the drug offenses. The prison population has been a topic of conversation around the world for many years now and has recently become an ever-growing concern in the United States. More than 10. 1 million people are held in penal institutions around the world, and the United States holds more than a quarter of the world’s incarcerated population. At 2. 29 million people incarcerated in the United States (Walmsley, 2011), our prisons are full.

The only country that has even close to as many prisoners as we do is China at 1. 65 million people incarcerated (Walmsley, 2011). China’s total population is 1,354. 1 million, and the United States’ total population is 308. 4 million. China’s total population is more than four times that of the United States, and yet the United States prison population is almost one and a half times what China’s is at. This could be because of the luxuries that inmates get when incarcerated here in the United States that other countries do not provide for their inmates.
Inmates in the United States receive cable television and new release movies, music and music players, and even education; all of these are luxuries that most other countries do not offer their inmates. The luxuries that inmates in the United States receive cost taxpayer dollars to provide, the average cost per inmate is $31,286. 00 per year (Henrichson & Delaney, 2012). That is a large lump sum of money, especially considering that the average American citizen only makes $46,000. 00 or less per year.
The cost of inmates on taxpayers could be a whole topic in itself. Of the 2. 9 million people incarcerated in the United States, 337,405 of them are in State or Federal prisons for drug offenses (Drugwarfacts. org, 2011); this number does not even include those in local jails. According to the US Justice Department, 27. 9% of drug offenders in state prisons are serving time for possession, 69. 4% are serving time for trafficking offenses, and 2. 7% are in for “other. ” (Drugwarfacts. org, 2011). These numbers are too high. Penalties for trafficking are higher than possession, so 69. 4% will spend more time taking up that prison space and tax dollars than the 27. 9% of possessors will.
Even at only 2. 7%, the rate for those incarcerated for “other’ types of drug offenses is too high. In local jails alone, as of a 2002 federal survey, there were 440,670 local inmates, a quarter of which (112,447) were drug offenders (Drugwarfacts. org, 2011). Of this 112,447, 11. 1% are there on possession charges, and 12. 8% for trafficking. At 112,447 people incarcerated in local jails, that is one-third of what we already have incarcerated in State and Federal prisons. These numbers keep adding up and getting higher and higher. Something needs to change in order for these numbers to start decreasing.
At 2. 29 million people incarcerated in the United States, with overpopulated prisons, we need to reconsider what crimes are worth punishing, and if paying out $31,286. 00 per inmate per year in tax dollars is really necessary. Many studies show that increased admissions to drug treatments are associated with reduced incarceration rates. According to Drugwarfacts. org (2011), “States with a higher drug treatment admission rate than the national average send, on average, 100 fewer people to prison per 100,000 in the population than states that have lower than average drug treatment admissions. (Treatment).
Of the 20 states that admit the most people to treatment per 100,000, 19 had incarceration rates below the national average. Of the 20 states that admitted the fewest people to treatment per 100,000, eight had incarceration rates above the national average. Increased admission to treatment rates also showed a decrease in the crime rate and a reduction to control costs. According to Drugwarfacts. org (2011) as well, “Admissions to drug treatment increased 37. 4 percent and federal spending on drug treatment increased 14. 6 percent from 1995 to 2005.
During the same period, violent crime fell 31. 5 percent. ” (Treatment). Also according to Drugwarfacts. org (2011), “A study by the RAND Corporation found, “the savings of treatment programs are larger than the control costs; we estimate that the costs of crime and lost productivity are reduced by $7. 46 for every dollar spent on treatment. “(Treatment). Even if we just shift what we put the tax dollars towards a little, it could have a big and beneficial impact on our economy and on our society in general. A lot can be learned from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs in 2001.
Since decriminalizing illicit drugs in Portugal the rate of drug-related deaths, as well as the number of offenders arrested in Portugal for trafficker, trafficker-consumer, and consumer offenses have all decreased. Since the decriminalization, there has been a reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases. “Most interviewees were of the view that the decriminalization had reduced the burden on the Portuguese criminal justice system and enabled police to refocus their attention on more serious offenses, namely drug traf? king-related offenses. (Hughes & Stevens, 2010, p. 1008). Evidence also indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding in Portugal since the decriminalization of illicit drugs. If it can help with their overcrowding prison problem than it can help with ours as well. Portugal has taken a dramatic step in its justice system, and they have seen great benefits from it, as can we.
The number of people arrested for criminal offenses related to drug offenses reduced from over 14,000 offenders in 2000 to an average of 5,000–5,500 offenders per year. (Hughes & Stevens, 2010, p. 1008). There has also been an increased uptake of drug treatment. The facts speak for themselves; the numbers are all too high, from the number of offenders incarcerated, to the amount of time that they spend for those crimes and the tax dollars that are being spent on them while they are incarcerated. Whether it is an increased requirement for drug treatment or entire decriminalization of drug offenses as in Portugal’s example, we have a few options to consider; something can be done to put a stop to this problem, and we need to start doing it.
This problem will not just go away; someone needs to take the first step towards the reform of our practices and policies. If nothing is done than the numbers will just keep increasing further; more new jail cells will continue to keep being constructed, and they will be filled with more new inmates, maybe someone that is close to you. Will you take the first step to ensure that this problem does not go any further? Let’s start standing up and confronting this problem head-on; together we can conquer anything, one problem at a time.
References

ZHENG, T. , SALGANIK, M. J. , & GELMAN, A. 2006, June). How Many People Do You Know in Prison? : Using Overdispersion in Count Data to Estimate Social Structure in Networks. Journal of the American StatisticalAssociation,(),409-423.Retrievedfromhttp://www.stat.columbia. edu/~gelman/research/published/overdisp_final. pdf
Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics. (2012). Penalties for US Drug Offenses. Retrieved from http://www. cognitiveliberty. org/dll/drugpenalties. htm
Walmsley, R. (2011, July). World prison population list. International Centre for Prison Studies, Ninth Edition(), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www. cribd. com/doc/77097293/World-Prison-Population-List-9th-edition
Drugwarfacts. org. (2011). Retrieved from http://www. drugwarfacts. org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#Research
Drugwarfacts. org. (2011). Retrieved from http://www. drugwarfacts. org/cms/Treatment
HUGHES, C. , & STEVENS, A. (2010). What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?. British Journal Of Criminology, 50(6), 999-1022. doi:10. 1093/bjc/azq038 Christian Henrichson and Ruth Delaney, The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers.
New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012.

Com156 – Prison Population of Drug Offenders

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99