A Comprehensive Analysis of Drug and Alcohol Abuse

A White House Conference was convened to discuss the growing problem on drugs and alcohol trafficking that was taking place and the concerns that the nation had on it. Although there was an ongoing problem with narcotics and they were trying to get the opiate dependant under control the methods of medical treatment were seemingly becoming experiment. During the 1960s the term “dangerous drug” was referred to as the three classes of nonnarcotic drugs that are habit forming or have potential for abuse because of the stimulant, depressant, and hallucinogenic effect it can have on a person.

The most frequently documented sequence involves four stages of onset: beer or wine, tobacco and/or liquor, marijuana, and ‘hard’ drugs such as sedatives, tranquilizers, or cocaine.The independent variables that were used during the comminions report was the drug treatment that was used on the patient. The dependant variable that was used during the time was the drug abuse and the types of drugs that were being abused.

The commission report explained that the drugs that were being abused during the time were narcotics, stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens. There is no settled definition of addiction.

“Sociologists speak of assimilation into a special life style of drug taking. Doctors speak of physical dependence and altercation into the central nervous system that results in painful sickness when use of the drug is abruptly discontinued. Almost everyone has know someone that has been addicted to some type of drug or alcohol abuse and when they are trying to get off of the addiction and are going through withdrawal it is not a pleasant thing to witness and is surely not easy at all.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified

Proficient in: Addiction

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It takes a serious toll on the person that is going through the withdrawal both mentally and physically. When someone is addicted to drugs for so long there body become dependent on the drug and they start to need it for everyday life. When they start to go through withdrawal, the body does not always react well and in some cases can go into failure resulting in seizure and strokes research shows. One of the independent variables that the commission focused on very much was LSD. It is the most potent if the hallucinogens , it is a synthetic drug made by chemical process.

The medical society of the county of new york cited the dangers of LSD “prolonged psychosis, acting out of character disorders, homosexual impulses, suicidal instinctions, activation of previously latent psychosis, and reappearance of the drug use months and even weeks after the drug use. “In 1965 it was report that a total of 65% of victims suffering from psychosis were induced by LSD and were admitted into Bellevue Hospital in New York. The dependant variables that were used during the commission report was the treatment of abuse. Some of the places that had treatment facilities were: the california treatment rehabilitation center, were most admissions were addicted misdemeanors and felons convicted in California and who committed by the courts. The program in California involved at least 6 months of treatment but most treatments lasted 15 months. During the course there the patients were treated for the drug abuse and drug dependency that they had and they went through mental health treatments as well. Once the patients were released when they were rehabilitated they were put onto and outpatient program where they had to report 5 times a month for drug screening to make sure they they were not using again.

The new york state program was also a treatment program for those who would go there in lieu of prosecution. This was a inpatient and outpatient program for the treatment and prevention of addictions. Also daytop lodge was a voluntary program serving addictions, synanon was a private addiction facility which was made up entirely of ex addicts and volunteers on the entire staff. There was also methadone maintenance which was an experimental drug rehab for heroin addiction. One form of treatment that is still used today that was also used with the commission was parole. Parole of course is not a medical treatment but it may be classified as a treatment to help one overcome their addiction. The commission had stated that to think of treatment for drug abuse as a cure would be a waste. This is because there’s not such thing as cure for drug abuse. There are ways to help someone try to not be addicted to drugs but there is not a simple one stop on fix cure for it all and to think of a treatment facility as a cure would be a waste and would not make a difference. When talking about how the concepts were measured for drug abuse, it was not always easy to get an accurate count of course because not everyone is willing to admit that they are addicted to drugs.

The ways that some of the data was gathered was through the court system because it was public record, so the people who were repeat offenders that had gotten sent to treatment facilities were part of the count and also the people who had been admitted to the hospital. There was a lot of research done to show if the patients were just a first time visitor or if they had been coming back to the hospital for some time now and where also classified in the drug addiction classification. Also another way that data was measured was through the recidivism rate. If someone had been a drug abuser before and was convicted and went to a rehabilitation facility and then had come back that means that they were not measure for a positive mark but for a negative mark because they had recidivate.The methods that the commission used to collect date was surveys. Surveys were conducted throughout the years and over different areas to see what areas had higher drug abuse and what the sociological effect could have impacted and what areas had small amount of drug abuse and what the sociological events were in those areas. A variety of studies have been undertaken to establish the validity of such surveys (Rouse et al., 1985).

Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be supported is that most people are willing to be reasonably truthful within the bounds of their capability under the proper conditions. The proper conditions, of course, is the key phrase. Evidence from other areas of survey research suggests that, when respondents believe they are guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality, when they accept the scientific or practical value of the survey, when they accept the legitimacy of the survey, then they tend to be generally truthful (Forman and Linney, 1991; Rouse et al., 1985; Murray and Perry, 1987). Whether these conditions are met in the household drug use survey, the school-based surveys of students, or the mail-out questionnaire follow-up surveys of high school graduates is debatable.    The commission findings on the nature of the drug problem in America measured by survey data on individuals in school classrooms and households, illicit drug use is not confined to or even particularly prominent in any one social class, economic stratum, race, or ethnic group, although any experience with drugs is self-reported more frequently by the wealthy than the less wealthy and more by whites than Hispanics or blacks.

The recommendations that the commission has on an improvement plan for the drug abuse and addictions problem is many. The commission recommends that the state and federal drug laws should give a large enough measure of discretion to the courts and correctional authorities to enable them to deal flexibility with violators taking into account of the nature and seriousness of the offense, prior record of the offender and other relevant circumstances. They also recommend the National Institute of Mental Health should devise and execute a plan of research to be carried on both on an intramural and extramural basis, covering all aspects of marijuana use. The recommendations that the commission has for the duration aspect is that a core of educational and informational materials should be developed by the National Institute of Mental Health. The research that the commission recommended was that research should be undertaken devoted to early action on the further development of a sound and effective framework of regulatory and criminal laws with respect to dangerous drugs. In addiction research and educational programs concerning the effect of drugs should be undertaken. The commission also had some recommendations for the law enforcement aspect of drug abuse and addiction, mainly with the smuggling of the drugs into the areas.

The commission recommend that the enforcement staff of the Bureau of Narcotics should be materially increased. Some parts of the added program should be used to design and execute a long range intelligence effort aimed at the upper echelons of the illicit drug trafficking. Also that the stated that do not already have adequate legislation should adopt a model state drug abuse control act similar to the Federal Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965. Also with the record keeping, that they should be required that records should be segregated or kept in some other form that enables then to be promptly identified and inspected when they may need to be. Literature Section    In just a few years drug courts grew from just one court to a solid court system in many states around the world. Drug courts were initialize to help in the treatment of drug abuse and drug crimes throughout the states and area. Not only have drug courts grown in size but they have also grown in type as well. At first they were just targeted at adult offenders and illicit substance users, and now they have expanded. Now drug courts have been applied to non traditional offenders, juveniles, illicit substances users and also repeats DWI offenders. The purpose of drugs courts was to help with the recidivism rate among offenders but it is unclear if the recidivism rate has actually decreased or if it has just stayed the same. This is because most reviews and research has only been able to track recidivism rate while someone is enrolled with drug court of shortly there after.

But it has not been able to determine the effect it has on long term recidivism rate after one has been involved with drug court. The research that was done by Ojmarrh Mitchell showed results that were that recidivism rates are lower among drug court participants but varies by the size and varieties of drug courts. “For drug court for adults, the average effect of participation is equivalent to a reduction in general recidivism from 50% to approximately 38% and a reduction in drug related recidivism from 50% to approximately 38%.” Those reductions are persistent for about three years after program entry for recidivism. So therefore the evidence shows that adult drug courts are effective in reducing recidivism and the policy implication of this conclusion is that continuing used funding, development and operation of adult drug court is warranted.    Another treatment for drug abuse and addiction that has become prevalent over the years has been juvenile drug court. In contrast to the effect of adult drug court, juvenile drug court has had a relatively small recidivism rate in comparison. The research estimates indicated that the average effect of participation in juvenile drug court is equivalent to a reduction in recidivism from 50% to approximately 43.5%. That average is 40% smaller than the participation recidivism in adult drug court. The question why is juvenile drug court not as successful as adult court has been asked may time over the years and there is not certain answer. There are two speculations for the reason and they are, that juvenile courts generally provide services to relatively higher risk offenders whereas other drug courts typically exclude high risk offenders.

The other reason for why juveniles drug courts recidivism rate is not as strong as adult drug court recidivism rate is, juvenile drug court is less demanding with the treatments and interventions than the other adult drug court. Juvenile drug court drug testing and status hearing seem to be not as frequent as other drug courts and also the period of program participations seems to be shorter in duration. The conclusions that the research had come up with was that the drug courts help deter crime and help with drug abuse and addiction but the long they may be enrolled in the treatment requirements and stay at the drug facilities if they are ordered to by the courts or go willingly, is that the longer they stay and get the help they need the more recidivism rates will go down. The research recommend that the drug courts for juvenile have a long program requirement and have stricter guidelines because then they will be less likely to recidivate especially when they are young and they have their whole lives ahead of them.    Another area that the commission discussed was the educational area. The commission discussed how they found that public and professional education in the field was inadequate.

Thankfully those points are not as valid as they were then today. Over the years there has been much research on addiction and abuse and what types of treatment may work and some forms to help deter the actions of it. One of the deterrence that had been discovered and expanded upon based on the commission report was the DARE project. DARE was drug abuse resistance education that was formed in the 1980 amd had the slogan “Just say No”. Dare has been collaboratively run with schools and law enforcement throughout United States. The aim of the program is to prevent substance abuse by teaching children and adolescents about the dangers of drugs and ability of abstaining from partaking in them. No one can can stay that adolescent substance abuse is not a problem, but despite widespread dare programs, there is little scientific evidence that shows that DARE is effective. “By eighth grade more than half of children have consumed alcohol and by the end of high school that number drastically rises to 80%. And it of course does not stop with graduation: 18 to 29 year olds drink 45% of the alcohol in the US and 63% of the heaviest drinkers are under the age of 30.

So i’d DARE actually working at all. Dare is implemented in elementary school when kids are just leaving what alcohol and drugs are. They are not implemented or followed through into middle school and high school when the adolescent may actually need the advise and that someone to go to if they need help.    In a study done by Wayne L. Lucas, it talked about the effect that DARE has on a person and how parents think the program has worked for their children and if it has stopped them from trying the drugs or even prevented them from getting addicted. The independant and dependant variables were measured through a survey. The research was done through a self administered survey and was anonymous. The parents did the survey based on the impact that DARE had on their children. The results of the surveys showed that DARE played little to no change in the grades in school, an improved want to go to school when dare officers were present, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, more of an ability to resist peer pressure, more of an understanding of the effects of alcohol and drugs, and more of a positive perception of police officers. So although the research survey that was sent out to the parents played a positive role on what the parents thought it did for the children it did not play that big of a role. The parents also had an impact on the DARE courses.

The impact it had on parents was that nearly 8 out of 10 parents indicated that they had an increased discussion about drug use with their children as a result of that child’s participation in the DARE program.    Based on the commission report and how the recommendations were for the educational aspects to get a better understanding a more intricate approach this is what the had come up with. There are flaws to DARE and also other programs like them but with some reworking and a more defined approach there could be some good reasoning coming out of it. Just because it has not completely worked yet does not mean that it can’t work at all. Based on the research that has already been conducted, the research journals advised that future research needs to be done and a new structure for a drug deterrence programs should be developed focusing on the flaws that the previous program have had.Research study of your own designBased on the research that has already been conducted, a new research study that could be implemented that can be done is to understand how to revamp the DARE program and make it work better.

Over the years DARE is still only being done in school usually elementary level and no higher, but based on research that is not when children are having the problem with drugs and alcohol. If DARE was implemented more throughout all levels of schooling it could have a better reaction and a better end result for all children. When DARE is being conducted, it in elementary school and the officers are constantly telling kids to just say no. But when the kids get to middle and high school and are actually in the position of having to say no, they don’t know what to do. Noone is there anymore telling them to just say no. So they end up just saying yes. But if DARE was also in the middle school and in the high school continuing to teach them about the effects of drugs later in life and about how to handle some scenarios they may be experiencing now, it may help more with combating the problem of drug abuse. The way that the research would get measured on how to better improve DARE would be to interview the officers who teach DARE and also to interview some of the people who are going through drug addiction now or went through it in the past.

When interviewing the previous officers the questions will be targeted around what seemed to have worked in the past and what seemed to not have worked. Also about would it be beneficial to continue the DARE program through the years of further education and will it make a difference. When interviewing the previous drug abusers, and the current drug abusers, it will be targeted around what age it started at to get a better understanding of what age of youth need to be targeted more closely. Also it will be targeted around if something had happened in their personal life that lead to them feeling like drug and alcohol were the only options that they had left. When we get a better understand of what lead the abuse to start it will give us a better understand of what and how we can do what we need to do to combat it. The hypothesis that will be tested will be can DARE program throughout all grades help to deter drug and alcohol abuse. The way that the research will be getting gethered will be through survey. The survey will be open ended questions that will help gain a better understand of what had gone wrong in the previous program and what can be done to help better improve in the future. Some of the questions that will be getting ask will be: What was positive about the DARE program? What can be done to help improve the program? What ages should be the target of the new version of DARE?

Should DARE remain a course during school or should it be an elective for children to choose from or and outside program that parents can sign up their kids for after school? What types of programs would have helped you to prevent you from using drugs?To be able to get the officers to comply with the research should not be a problem but of course it will be kept all confidential and will all be kept under lock and key in the main computer. When asking the drug abusers to cooperate, that may be hard to get the honesty that we need for the research but once they are given the confidentiality agreement and are given some type of compensation for there cooperation it should be manageable. When doing the research there needs to be more of a focus on the types and area of people that have higher drug and alcohol abuse. For example, there needs to be a focus on socioeconomic class, race, gender, age, and household poverty level.

This is because with understand those key concepts of the current and previous drug abusers, that will show where there is a higher ratio and were more educational and detering classes and educational training needs to take place. Where more of the focus should go without forgetting about the other areas of the community of course. There are always thing that can go wrong with research studies and when talking about drug and alcohol abuse, the main thing that you must be concerned with is validity. An example of validity is that different self-report methods produce similar trend results. Self-administered mail-out questionnaires, group-administered school-based questionnaires, and household interviews using self-completed, sealed answer sheets all provide similar trends.

Also The absolute levels of reported drug involvement are substantial; large numbers of respondents do freely admit to experiences with illicit drugs; lifetime marijuana prevalence among some age groups is well over 50 percent, demonstrating that most users do indeed admit to this on a self-report basis.Aside from problems with validity, survey data are subject to nonresponse error due to incomplete population coverage and insufficient response rates. An important consideration is consistency over time. If response rates or coverage were to change from year to year, that could produce spurious changes in apparent results. Clearly, the surveys do not cover all the affected populations equally well, and they will underestimate the number of people involved with drugs at any one point in time. The household and the high school senior survey results seem to accurately represent overall trends in drug use in the general population, but not necessarily in the highest risk groups