Discrete Responses To 3 Exact Questions

Discrete Responses To 3 Exact Questions

Author

Institution

Introduction

What are Zinberg’s ‘three determinants’ of illicit drug use? Give examples.

Drug use has been one of the most controversial problems in the contemporary human society. Indeed, it has triggered immense research on its risk factors especially considering that it has a bearing on the productivity of the population. Needless to say, drug abusers usually have reduced productivity thanks to the interference with their mental and psychological faculties. Of course, the multiplicity of substances to be abused underlines the fact that there are variations as to the effects of the substances, as well as the magnitudes of their effects. Nevertheless, the reasons or determinants for the use of illicit drugs are undoubtedly similar across the board. Zinberg gave three determinants for illicit drug use. These include the drugs’ pharmacological actions, the setting within which the individual lives, and the set, or rather the individuals’ attitudes at the time when he starts using including the structure of his personality.

With regard to the attitudes at the time of starting the use of drugs, Zinberg acknowledges that the use of any substance involves values and rules of conduct, as well as patterns of behavior, collectively referred to as social controls (Zinberg 6). These define the manner in which a certain drug would be used, as well as the possibility that it will be used. They may take on an information or formal nature. Zinberg acknowledges that social rituals underline the prescribed and stylized patterns of behavior surrounding the use of a certain drug. They encompass the techniques used in procuring and administering substances, the choice of social and physical setting for such use, techniques used in preventing any awkward drug effects, as well as the activities that an individual undertakes after administering the drug.

The effects of setting or the environment in which an individual lives have previously been ignored as most research concentrated on the drugs and the individual attitudes. However, setting plays an immense role in determining the probability that an individual would start abusing drugs. To support these claims, Zinberg drew the example of the American soldiers or enlisted men in Vietnam. It was estimated that about 35% of the soldiers started using heroin when they were in Vietnam with about 54% of them becoming addicted to the substance. In addition, the recidivism rates for these soldiers within a year were reported to be as high as 90%, although the effectiveness of the interventions could not be precisely determined (Zinberg 12, 3). Of particular note is that reports showed that the rates of recidivism and relapse for soldiers that left Vietnam and went back to the United States were reported to be about 13%, a sharp drop from the previous rates (Zinberg 12, 4). This underlined the fact that the abhorrent social setting in Vietnam caused the soldiers or enlisted men who would ordinarily not have tried to use heroin to start using it and eventually become addicted to the same (Zinberg 12, 4). This is the same case underlined by the David in Lisa’s story. Lisa had a number of weak ties to various friends in her past. For instance, she had Vinnie as a weak tie connecting a group of drug users with whom Lisa worked and another group consisting of his friends and workmates, chief among them Rick. The association of Rick and Lisa ensured that Lisa would have a steady supply of drugs, particularly, high quality amphetamine (David 417, 2).

In addition, the pharmacological actions of the drugs may be determinants as to the possibility that an individual engages in illicit drug use. In this regard, one may examine the case of enlisted men in Vietnam. The increased number of enlisted men that got hooked to heroin may be attributed to the high potency of the drug. Indeed, the drug was extremely potent, as well as readily available at low cost, a combination that resulted in increased drug use. It is worth noting that the drug was so inexpensive and potent that the men chose to consume it through smoking rather than injecting it. These two elements increased the attractiveness of the drug to the enlisted men than it would have been the case if the only way for taking the drug was through injection. Indeed, this would explain the reduced usage of the drug upon their return to the US (Zinberg 12, 2)

What is a harm reduction approach to drug use? According to Wodak Wodak, how will this approach help to achieve better outcomes from illicit drug policy?

The devastating effects of drug use have been a source of immense concern in a large number of countries. Indeed, these effects span from the social aspects of a nation to the economic aspects. At the individual level, the effects are even more concentrated touching on all aspects pertaining to the health of the individual. Not only would substance abuse affect the intellectual faculties of an individual or even their emotional health, but it also comes with other effects especially considering that it is a risk factor for contracting ailments such as HIV/Aids due to the unhealthy behaviors involved. Varied strategies have been devised to eliminate this menace with varying degrees of success. However, researchers have acknowledged the importance of using Harm Reduction in combating drug or substance abuse.

Harm reduction approach, according to Wodak (2000), refers to efforts towards the reduction of the economic, social and health adverse consequences that emanate from the use of illicit drugs or substances without necessarily lowering their consumption (Wodak, 2000, pp.185, paragraph 3). In this case, abstinence may be promoted but not while increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. More precisely, harm reduction may be defined as the reduction of the adverse consequences pertaining to a psychoactive drug. The approach addresses certain risks that are related to injecting drug use including long-term, medium and immediate harms both to the user and the wider community (Wodak & McLeod, 2008, pp.83. paragraph.1). Of particular note is the fact that the approach does not inherently contradict efforts at promoting abstinence from substances, as long as the efforts at promoting abstinence also result in a reduction of the harms that the individual and the wider community would have to suffer for the same (Wodak & McLeod, 2008, pp. 83 Paragraph 5). The strategies encompassed in the approach include drug treatment, community development, needle syringe programmes, as well as explicit and peer-based education pertaining to the risk of HIV/Aids emanating from the sharing of the injecting equipment in the course of using drugs.

The relationship between increased drugs abuse and increased HIV prevalence has been recognized for a long time. Harm reduction approach has also been recognized as one of the easiest techniques for controlling HIV. The key basis for the implementation of this approach revolves around the fact that it comes with numerous entry points through which users can gain access to health treatment, including low threshold low intensity contacts, all the way to high threshold, high intensity treatment.

One of the key reasons of the success of harm reduction therapy over illicit drug policy revolves around the variations of the benefits that individuals would derive from pharamacotherapies. Indeed, not all drug users would accept or even benefit from pharmacotherapies, in which case it would be imperative that new non-pharmacological treatments are adopted. This may be achieved through counseling, family therapy strategies and early childhood interventions. Indeed, it would be possible to achieve greater success through the identification of risk factors including peer relationships, family factors and individual characteristics, alongside structural determinants like health services, housing, poor education and employment opportunities, issues that drug policy does not put into consideration.

In addition, drug policy makes immense use of drug treatment. While this may be imperative as controlling HIV prevalence, it is also imperative that assistance is offered to individuals that use these drugs without necessarily injecting themselves, which is a fundamental aspect of harm reduction. This may entail effective response to factors that would push individual drug users to move to the use of injections as the primary mode of administration. Wodak notes that some drug users may start injecting drugs in cases where the purity of drugs reduces or the price of drugs increase (Wodak 2008, pp. 84, 5). Individuals may start injecting these drugs in instances where drug users who do not inject themselves are not assisted. Increased dependence on law enforcement as the key way for responding to illicit drugs use runs an immense risk of promoting a change from non-injecting techniques of drug administration to injecting (Wodak 2008, pp. 84 paragraph 5).

Moreover, current illicit drug policy revolves around the incarceration of individuals, an aspect that increases the risk of drug use. Indeed, incarceration only means that a large number of drug users would spend increasingly large amount of their time in correctional facilities, and will have so little to lose that the high risk of infection would persist. Indeed, the incarceration also comes with other factors such as increased sharing of injecting equipment, not to mention the severely degraded nature of the syringes and needles. In addition, there may be efforts to reduce the use of drugs in prisons, an aspect that only results in increased sharing of equipments. This increases the risk of HIV infections (Wodak & McLeod, 2008, pp 85, paragraph 7). Harm reduction, on the other hand, would not be primarily concerned with the reduction of the consumption of drugs, rather reduction of their effects, in which case the provision of needles and syringes both in the communities and in correctional facilities would result in decreased sharing and decreased rates of infections.

Describe the production and distribution of cocaine in terms of a transnational commodity chain.

Cocaine has been one of the most abused drugs in the entire world. Of course, there are variations as to the abuse demographics between countries thanks to variations in aspects such as laws, availability, economics, as well as social political aspects. However, the production of cocaine is primarily concentrated in Latin America especially countries such as Columbia, Peru and Bolivia. Of particular note is the fact that Latin America produces other drugs in large amounts including heroin and marijuana, but cocaine remains the greatest concern for the United States.

The production of cocaine in Columbia is undertaken by five key syndicates whose headquarters are in Cali and Medellin. These control about 70% to 80% of total production of cocaine from Columbia. Columbian traffickers also control a large part of the Peru cocaine industry, while Bolivia’s cocaine trade is primarily under the control of between 12 and 25 families (Lee, 1988. Pp 501, paragraph 1). However, Columbia comes as the key player of the cocaine industry in South America.

The syndicates in Cali and Medellin, which have about 60 percent of the entire world’s cocaine under their control, obtain the raw materials from Bolivia and cocaine and undertake the process of manufacture in Colombia. The manufactured cocaine is then shipped to the United States in loads of about 300 kilograms or more to the United States, before they are sold in wholesale in the United States (Lee, 1988, pp. 501 paragraph 2). The syndicates could also have expanded to more profitable distribution phases in which loads of cocaine would be subdivided into even smaller lots, laced with inert substances and repackaged into smaller packages yet sold at double the price they would fetch in wholesale.

In the case of Peru, there was increased cultivation of Andean migrant farmers who cultivated the plant in the 70s as a cash crop in Tingo Maria area. The growth of coca is done in small plots scattered in upper Amazonian rain forest. In Bolivia, the cultivation of cocaine is undertaken in a region referred to as Chapare, which has, for a long time resisted any efforts towards the introduction of other cash crops that would substitute cocaine. Indeed, it is well acknowledged that no other cash crop would provide a large number of peasants living in Chapare with an ecologically, economically and socio-culturally viable substitute or alternative to coca or even succeed in enticing them to cultivate such crops willingly without coercing them. of course, varied other attempts have been made in an effort to eradicate the cultivation of the crop with varying degrees of success (Sanabria, pp, 170, paragraph 1).

Once it is harvested in Peru, Colombia and Bolivia (the three countries accounting for 90% of the world’s cocaine production), the leaves are converted to coca paste by skilled mixers (Wilson & Zambrano 303, paragraph 2). The paste is the taken through a capital intensive process in laboratories where the paste is mixed with imported chemicals such as methanol, ether and acetone. These are primarily located in Colombia and are primarily controlled by Colombian drug-trafficking organizations. The refined product is then transported to the United States primarily by air. Colombian organizations control a large part of the transportation aspect (Wilson & Zambrano 304, paragraph 3). The wholesale distribution of cocaine in the United States, however, is under the control of United States organizations (Wilson & Zambrano 304, paragraph 4). Of course, there are variations in the control that the organizations exercise in particular states, with U.S citizens monopolizing the distribution in Southern California, while Colombian organizations control a large part of distribution in New York (Wilson & Zambrano 304, paragraph 4).

Bibliography

Lee, R. W (1988). Why the U.S. Cannot Stop South American Cocaine. Global Advisory Services

Sanabria, H (1997). Coca, Cocaine, and the Bolivian Reality. State University Of New York Press

Wilson, S & Zambrano, M. Cocaine, Commodity Chains, and Drug Politics: A Transnational Approach. London: Praeger

Moore, D (1993). Beyond Zinbergs Social Setting: A Processural view of Illicit drug Use. Drug and Alcohol Review. 12:4, 413-421

Zinberg. N. E (1984). Historical Perspectives on controlled drug Use in drug, set, setting: the basis for controlled introxicant Use. Yale University Press: New Haven and London

Wodak, A (2000).Developing more effective responses Drugs and Democracy: In Search ofNew Directions.

Wodak, A & McLeod, L (2008). The role of jharm reduction in controlling HIV infections among Injecting drug users: AIDS 22 Supplement 2, 81-92