Introduction

Define Policy and briefly outline its application to the drug and alcohol field. The word policy is not the simplest of words to give a definition for as it can and has been used in many different ways on different occasions and seems to be very flexible in its application and even sometimes vague, but it usually refers to a course of action adopted by a government, business, or an individual etc, (Pocket Oxford Dictionary) When policy is applied to the drug/alcohol field it is most certainly a course of action adopted or proposed by the government in accordance to the direction in which the government proposes to take in addressing its current drug/alcohol problems and is usually supported by special legislation. However depending on where the government is situated the policies drawn up concerning drugs/alcohol can be either similar in approach or worlds apart with some countries adopting part of other governments policies while also maintaining their own and in some cases left with something that can be quite contradictory in its application and in its practise. A report published recently on the development of national policies on illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco in 17 member countries of the Council of Europe which included Ireland revealed that the policies all lie along a continuum between one umbrella substance-use policy (e.g. Switzerland, France and Norway) and separate policies for different substances (e.g. the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) whereas Ireland has a tendency to combine elements of illicit drugs and alcohol policies and practise and lies somewhere around the midpoint of the continuum with three separate policies.( Drugnet 2009 ) According to Richard Muscatt the co-ordinator of the project who presented a synthesis of the 17 national reports the common denominator among all the national policies is an overarching concern with health and this is the prime factor guiding most policy choices. (Drugnet 2009) This is indeed evident when one considers the Irish National Drug Strategy 2009-2016 and its strong harm reductionist approach but also engrafted into the policy in its supply reduction pillar Ireland maintains its somewhat Americanised approach of the war on drugs firstly adopted by President Nixon in 1972 and critically analyzed by Bruce Billington 1998 in his reflection of this so called war where he concluded that the war has been calamitous in its
1

results with the most notable achievement being the wholesale incarceration of young men especially minority males at extraordinary rates. (King 2003). So it would seem that Irish drug/alcohol policy is a combination of European and American policies and one cant help but wonder that could there be some hidden wisdom in this entwined policy, or has the Irish Government come to the stage of utter and total confusion where on one hand it is criminalising and incarcerating the drug user and on the other is handing over a clean needle and a set of safety instructions? In examining the National Drugs Strategy 2009-2016 the structure of the proposed pillars portrays an overall confident tone in regards to our latest drug policy but let us now delve deeper into three of the main pillars and discern for ourselves just what exactly should be prioritised.

Main Body
In the forward of the National Drugs Strategy (interim) 2009-2016, the Taoiseach Brian Cowen states: At a time of scarce resources, we all recognise the need to secure the maximum impact from the resources we invest through the National Drugs Strategy. The achievement of best value for money is to the ultimate benefit of individual problem drug users, their families and communities Yes in this present economic climate when resources are indeed scarce it is of vital importance that the proposed National Drugs Strategy 2009-2016 be carefully examined and filtered to eradicate that which is for purely political value and to prioritise that which will benefit the drug user, their families and their communities. At first glance this 5 pillared strategy comes across as a promising solution to the current drug crisis but with similar if not the same content and approach as the previous National Drugs Strategy 2001-2008 one cant help but wonder if it will make any significant difference whatsoever. The overall strategic objective contains strong overtones of the harm reduction approach and mirrors the previous strategy with a slight change in the active verb-to significantly reduce the harm being replaced by to continue to tackle the harm. (Drugnet , 2009)
2

So in keeping with the question in hand and keeping in mind the current economic crisis but also bearing in mind that the mythical Celtic Tiger could not eradicate this countries drug problems how might the drug user, their families and communities be best served and what services should be prioritised in their favour? In order to prioritise any of the issues presented in The National Drugs Strategy we must firstly take a closer look at its main strategic pillars and their individual effectiveness before prioritising any of them. Supply Reduction Pillar This pillars main aim is to significantly reduce the volume of illicit drugs available in Ireland and to prevent the emergence of new markets and the expansion of existing ones, to disrupt the activities of organised criminal drug networks in Ireland and internationally, to target income generated through drug trafficking and to reduce community drug problems (National Drugs Strategy 2009-2016) This ideological pillar sounds extremely sweet to the average voters ear and would gain the backing of most communities come voting day but in reality it is ineffective. Although there was a 125% increase in supply detections between 2004-2008 (Drugnet, 2009), the impact of those seizures on reducing the overall supply of drugs was questionable (Drugnet, 2009) especially when figures for the annual number of cocaine cases increased by 177% from 2002-2007 (HRB Trends, 2009) The Supply Reduction Pillars aim to prevent the emergence of new markets is completely rubbished when one considers the almost unbelievable growth of Head Shops around the country and their dangerous selection of legal highs. Gardai say the business, are opening at a rate of one per week, and The Seanad has passed an all party motion urging the Government to introduce law to regulate the sale of dangerous substances through these shops.(RTE News, 2010) With the proposed action set up in the interim of the NDS to set up a working group to include alcohol and giving that there was a 30% increase in alcohol related offences between 2003-2007 and with almost 50% of all perpetrators of homicide being intoxicated when the crime was committed(Alcohol Action Ireland , 2009) it remains somewhat questionable as to why the focus of the Supply Reduction Pillar does not mention alcohol. Surely at a time of
3

scarce resources can we really tolerate or afford the cost of alcohol related harms which cost the economy 2.6 billion in 2003? (Alcohol Action Ireland, 2009) One wonders should this pillars priority be to replace the words illicit drugs in its aims to legal drugs and therefore read to significantly reduce the volume of legal drugs available in Ireland, as its effort to reduce the volume of illicit drugs seems to be ineffective and therefore a waste of valuable resources and with a estimated budget of more than 65 million in 2008 ( 2009 National Report To The EMCDDA,) could this money be used in a more constructive way that would benefit the individual problem drug user, their families and communities? Prevention Pillar According to Drugnet 2009, this pillar is aimed at reaching the general population/groups at risk and vulnerable people already using drugs/alcohol or who are likely to engage in problematic drug/alcohol use through programmes such as awareness campaigns, school drug/alcohol education, relapse prevention and group work The importance of educating the youth of today in regards to the dangers of drug/alcohol addiction must never be under emphasised but must be approached and delivered with the greatest of care and in response to this recognition The Social Personal Health Education (SPHE) has become a mandatory part of the curriculum although its effectiveness as a drug prevention measure was consistently questioned during the consultation process (Drugnet, 2009). Can we really afford to question the inward effect of this intervention upon our youths and should we not at least present the reality and the truths about drug/alcohol addiction to the next generation? According to Martin Keane (2010) in his evaluation of the Blueprint drugs education programme Pupils enjoyed the lessons, learned some of the skills needed to deal with situations in which they might be offered drugs, and also demonstrated good recall of drug knowledge, can we really put a price or economic value upon this sort of intervention and should not this sort of programme be prioritised no matter what the cost? Other youth interventions need to be developed especially to target the youths in the less advantaged areas where there may be a higher risk of drug/alcohol addictions.
4

One such intervention was developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1993 in the form of a Computer Clubhouse designed to provide inner city young people with access and training in new technologies such as web design, multimedia presentations and robotic constructions, and during its first two years of operation it attracted more than a thousand young people between the ages of 10 and 16, with 98% coming from socially deprived communities. This concept has been adapted by 14 other states within the United States and four countries outside the US- Colombia, Germany, Israel and the Netherlands. (King 2003) Certainly this sort of proven intervention should not go unnoticed and with an estimated budget of 96.889 million assigned to the Departments associated with the Prevention Pillar (2009 National Report to the EMCDDA) it is certainly achievable and most definitely a priority. Treatment and Rehabilitation Pillars According to The Steering Group this pillars main priorities are to, develop an integrated national treatment and rehabilitation service for all substances, to further develop engagement with and the provision of services for specific groups such as prisoners, homeless, travellers etc, to develop a clinical and governance framework for all treatment and rehabilitation services and training and skills development (Drugnet, 2009) This pillars effectiveness and success rate depends on the very way that you measure effectiveness/success. If one tends to look at success as to the amount of opiate drug users receiving treatment then this pillars success rate far outweighs any of the others. But if we are indeed treating more opiate users each year with methadone, does that fact within itself not contradict the very meaning of the word success? In 1995 there were 440 heroin users registered for methadone maintenance, by 1998 this number had increased to 3,630 and in 2005 to over 7,000 with this increase largely occurring in drug treatment centres, where methadone maintenance has remained the first choice and predominant treatment modality in the years since 1996( O Mahony 2008) Maybe our understanding of treatment for heroin users needs to be re-examined, with Merchants Quay reporting over 20 new injectors per week, every week over the course of the year 2008 (Irish Medical News 2009) and the Director of the Merchants Quay Project arguing to move beyond the maintenance programmes by providing more readily available
5

rehabilitation (O Mahony 2008) is it time to re- examine our methods and look to find a solution that benefits the individual problem drug user, their families and communities? This particular pillar receives an estimated 102.9 million and (2009 National Report to the EMCDDA) with the bulk of this figure being spent on treatment/methadone, considering that there are still only 20 residential drug addiction beds in the state, ( O Mahony 2008) one cant help to wonder has the government given up on the astonishing figure of 20,155 opiate cases who entered treatment in the years 2002-2007?(HRB Trends 2009) Obviously methadone/treatment has been weighed and found short in its effectiveness according to the figures produced in this essay and in dire need of reassessment as it is obviously ineffective to both the current economic crisis and the individual problem drug user their families and communities. The possible realisation of the need to prioritise rehabilitation instead of never-ending methadone programs was highlighted when in the mid-term review of the NDS 2001-2008 a recommendation was made for a separate pillar to be established for rehabilitation (Drugnet 2009)

Conclusion
In conclusion and considering the statistics we have examined in this particular essay it would be hard to prioritise any of the existing methods of practise as a lone solution to the current drug crisis. Even in this present time of economic difficulty each of the discussed pillars needs to be interlinked into each other in order to be in anyway effective against an ever-changing drug culture although there needs to be a shift in maybe some of the emphasis in each pillar of which is suggested here. Supply Reduction can never be undervalued as the Gardai need to keep tabs on the consistent and ever increasing flow of illegal substances into this country yet in this current economic climate it might be of better judgement should the Gardai decide to focus our limited resources on the harassment and investigation of the so called drug lords who are destroying our communities with their poisons instead of harassing petty criminals with 69% of all prosecutions in 2004 being for simple possession.( Connolly 2006 ) Prevention as we have already discussed must always be a priority and new and well thought out interventions must always be developed. It might also be of interest to take into account
6

the findings of the Rabbitte Report 1996-1997 and its conclusion that heroin use is concentrated in communities that are characterised by large scale social and economic deprivation where unemployment, poor living conditions, low educational attainment, high family breakdown and a lack of recreational facilities are the norm.(Rabitte Reports 19961997) The Treatment and Rehabilitation pillar needs a complete revamp where treatment should be only a short time intervention of maybe one months methadone detox followed by a possible 12 month residential drug rehab programme where social and educational skills can be taught to each of the clients in an effort to reintegrate each individual case back into society with every possible chance of maintaining a drug free lifestyle. The money saved from the restructuring of the methadone programme could be used to partly fund the rehabilitation of each client along with the monies seized each year by CAB, and maybe instead of sentencing minor cases for simple possession an on the spot fine could be issued inleu and paid directly to the Depts. responsible for this pillar in question which would also reduce the amount of money paid out by the government each year in the form of Free Legal Aid. At a time of scarce resources and in tune with Brian Cowens obvious concern for the individual problem drug user, their families and communities one wonders should the focus for best value for money be turned towards the governments policy makers and the entire political hierarchy who have failed these individual problem drug users, their families and their communities.

Word Count 2552

References: The Pocket Oxford Dictionary, Revised Eight Edition, Oxford University Press 1996. Drugnet, (2009), Newsletter of the alcohol and drug research unit, Issue 29, p3

King, P. (2003) The Politics of Drugs, From Production to Consumption, Dublin, The Liffey Express, p46,p152,p153. Drugnet, (2009), Newsletter of the alcohol and drug research unit, Issue 31, p2, p4, p5, p8 National Drugs Strategy 2009-2016 Carew A, Bellerose D, Lyons S, Long J (2009), Trends in treated problem cocaine use in Ireland, 2002 to 2007, HRB Trends, Series 6, p1 Rte News, (2009), Dramatic increase in head shops, 26 Jan 2010 [online], available: http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0126/head.html [accessed 17 Feb 2010] Alcohol Action Ireland, (2009), Alcohol-related harm facts and statistics | Alcohol Action Ireland [online], available: http://alcoholireland.ie/?page_id=110 [accessed 9 Feb 2010] Alcohol Action Ireland, (2009), Pre Budget Submission, 6 Oct 2009, [online], available: alcoholireland.ie/wp-content/.../pre-budget-submission-budget-2010.pdf - [accessed 10 Feb 2010] National Report To The EMCDDA, (2009), National Developments, Trends and in depth information on selected issues, Ireland, Reitox National Focul Point Keane, M. (2010), Blueprint drugs education: findings from an evaluation, National Documentation Centre, [online], available: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/12806/ [accessed 9 Feb 2010] O Mahony, P (2008), The Irish War on Drugs, The Seductive Folly of Prohibition, New York, Manchester University Press, p90 Mudiwa, L, (2009), Tackling Drug Abuse, Irish Medical News [online], available: http://www.irishmedicalnews.ie/index.php/current-issue/features/2497-tackling-drug-... [accessed 12 Feb 2010] Carew A, Bellerose D, Lyons S, Long J (2009), Trends in treated problem opiate use in Ireland, 2002 to 2007, HRB Trends, Series 7, p2 Connolly, J (2006), Drugs and crime in Ireland, National Documentation Centre on Drug Use [online], available: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/11249/ [accessed 20 Feb 2010] Rabbitte, P (1996), First report of the Ministerial Task Force on Measures to Reduce the Demand for Drugs [online], available: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/5058/

Name..................................Gary OHeaire
8

ID.......................................09007137

Module...............................EN3052
Substance use Community Social and Policy Perspective

Title of Assignment.....In the Forward of the NDS 2009-2016

Date of Submission.....05/03/2010