Introduction
Drug use is one of the most pressing and concerning issues in modern society in Australia. This is because it puts a significant number of the population at risk. Therefore, the Government and other parties involved face the task of finding ways to minimize it to improve the quality of people’s lives. For a long time, the view was that punitive approaches were more effective, but they have proven ineffective. Thus, given the failure of punitive approaches to drug use, harm minimization approaches must be adopted more widely in modern Australian society.
Punitive and Harm Minimization Approaches
First, it is necessary to pay attention to the differences between punitive and harm-minimization approaches. This kind of method focuses on the fact that drug use is a criminal offense. Therefore, the punishment for this kind of crime must be appropriate. Research stated that it “may be driven indirectly by the power relations between politicians and the electorate as the incentive of votes, inspires a need not to be seen as being ‘soft on drugs’” (Holland, 2020, p. 1).
Therefore, law enforcement efforts are involved in solving the problem, which are aimed at finding criminals and punishing them. The Australian Government emphasized that “public sentiment is calling for more punitive responses to crime in the face of clear evidence that ‘tough’ approaches do not work” (Smee, 2023, para 1). Harm minimization approaches have replaced this initiative.
The main distinguishing feature of harm minimization approaches is the change of perspective on the problem of drug use. Research defined it as “policies and programs aimed at reducing the harms associated with drug use, without necessarily eliminating or reducing drug use itself” (Kammersgaard, 2019, p. 346). In other words, it is based on the rejection of considering the need to minimize drug use as a crime and considering the problem as part of public health. As a result, individuals and communities will be involved, helping spread awareness of the dangers of drugs across society.
At-Risk Groups
The risk group that may be exposed to the problem of substance abuse includes a large part of the Australian population. In many ways, this is due to individuals having additional needs or vulnerabilities. This group of individuals may be people who, at some point in their lives, faced problems such as contracting COVID-19 or severe illnesses.
Another factor that affects the increase in the at-risk population is the lack of education. In other words, they may be people who drop out of school or college. Often, people who have a certain level of biological hazard can also belong to this group. This broad range of possible at-risk groups is further proof that punitive methods are less effective than harm-minimization approaches.
Benefits of Harm Minimization Approaches
Further, to minimize the harm that the use of narcotic substances can cause, a more extensive and comprehensive approach is required. Instead of focusing on individuals as criminals, it is necessary to shift the focus to how intelligence about the public health of Australian society can be enhanced. Therefore, it is necessary to highlight several advantages of this approach over punitive methods.
First of all, harm minimization approaches help change society’s perspective on the problem. In other words, it will focus more on solving not the problem itself but the factors that can cause it. In particular, this aspect concerns the lack of knowledge regarding the harm caused by prohibited substances.
In addition, harm minimization approaches focus on all age groups of the population that are at risk, placing great emphasis not only on adults but also on minors. Chidakwa et al. stated that the “absence of guidance and counselling exposes learners to more drug abuse cases and culture” (p. 155). Thus, the benefit of this method is the prevention of addiction from an early age.
It is also worth noting that harm minimization approaches greatly encourage the development of treatment and rehabilitation. Unlike punitive approaches, which aim to increase penalties for drug use, it provides individuals with the opportunity to get rid of addiction. Thus, the process of addressing the issue’s root causes takes place rather than merely limiting its effects.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when considering approaches that can help get rid of the problem of drug use in Australia, harm minimization will be most effective. This is because punitive methods have proven inconsistent, as they were aimed not at solving the problem’s causes but at its consequences. Thus, focusing on public health and raising public awareness of the issue can yield significant benefits for the country. In particular, this aspect is essential for dissemination among both the adult and underage population, since the problem of drug use affects a large number of individuals at risk.
References
Chidakwa, N., Modise, A. M., & Khanare, F. P. (2023). Drug abuse: A Hindrance to Optimal Functioning of the Rural Learner’s Cognitive Capabilities. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 8(3), 155-175.
Holland, A. (2020). An ethical analysis of UK drug policy as an example of a criminal justice approach to drugs: a commentary on the short film Putting UK Drug Policy into Focus. Harm Reduction Journal, 17, 1-9.
Kammersgaard, T. (2019). Harm reduction policing: from drug law enforcement to protection. Contemporary Drug Problems, 46(4), 345-362.
Smee, B. (2023). Australians urged to ditch ‘tough on crime’ mindset for youth justice as it does not work. The Guardian.