Data Sources of Drugs Distribution - Assignment Example

Drug and Crime Question Evaluate the methods used to research drug users and drug dealers with particular reference to the difficulties associated with researching ‘hidden populations’. Hidden populations are groups of people, who are not part of the normal society due to their different cultures, beliefs or activities. Individuals and communities that deal with drugs consist one of the major groups of hidden population. Doing research on these communities can be a daunting task for researchers since there is no way of knowing where these people are, and if found they will cooperate and give accurate information. In addition, due to their usually deviant habits, researchers have no way of knowing if the information collected from these people is dependable. These individuals consider as normal vices what their counterparts in the normal society consider as abomination. After locating them and doing the study, it is impossible for a researcher to know if the data from the sample is representative of all the parameters of the population. This is because the official numbers of the people in the drug related issues is unknown (Tanneeru 2011). There are various methods of collecting data related to drug manufacture, distribution, usage and abuse activity as explained by Coomber (1997). First, the researcher may collect data from official records e.g. police reports and treatment records. However, these data sources have their limitations, mostly due to the tendency of the hidden population to keep matters to themselves. For instance, they do not report criminal activity or conflicts among members and, therefore, data collected from police reports do not reflect the real situation, only accounting for few of the cases of drug use and drug related crimes. One outstanding characteristic of the data from police and that collected from treatment records is that the information only covers drug use cases that cause disruption of normal social function and not mild or non-chronic drug users. In addition, collecting treatment data may compromise the profession and ethical codes that ensure patient-doctor confidentiality. Another source of data on drug use is surveys and questionnaires, where researchers find the sample of interest and administer questionnaires among other primary data collection measures. This method has the advantage of the possibility of many people participating in the study, though it is also tedious and time-consuming. Since most drug users keep a low profile and hardly participate in public life, it is difficult to identify and impossible to know the total number of drug users. Therefore, data collected this way may not be representative of the drug-using population since researchers may miss target groups. In addition, the subjects may not understand the objective of the study and end up offering irrelevant, untruthful or exaggerated information, which compromises on the quality of the study (Miller and Sønderlund 2010). Another crucial source of drug use data is prison, which has the advantage of enabling extensive subject scrutiny in a controlled environment. However, before a researcher receives permission to do a study in a prison, they have to meander through endless labyrinths of bureaucratic processes. In addition, the data collected would not be representative of the drug-using population since only extreme cases find their way to prison. In addition, the prisoners attempting to further their personal agendas may compromise the information obtained from interviewing them. According to Potter (2010), the only solution to making a conclusive study on drug use is by using different methods of data collection for the same area, and then triangulating to have the average values. Question 7 (a): Describe and evaluate the main tactics employed in the policing of drug markets and drug dealers in the UK. Kleiman and Smith (1990), suggest that the aims of the drug market and dealer policing include reduction of drug use and related effect, decreasing drug related criminal activities, destroying drug cartels and protection of neighbourhood civility. There are many approaches to dealing with drug markets and dealers, including those with hard approach and others with a soft approach. For instance, there is the approach where authorities target the bosses of drug dealing industry, a great misconception since only a few crucial people in the industry know who the bosses are. The authorities just succeed in using resources to hunt down the wrong people since many drug lords use decoys to draw attention away from the people who matter. In any case, the drug industry is so self-sufficient that it replaces fallen decoys and even drug lords and business continues as usual. Bean (2008) argues that, to make matters worse authorities do not have enough intelligence about the drug industry to figure out who the real targets are; in addition, the investigating authorities do not share intelligence among themselves, leading to wasteful duplication of efforts (Dorn et al. 1998) The other approach to the drug policing is street sweeping, whereby authorities conduct raids on streets with suspected drug dealing activities. This method may result in arrests and cause some dealers to abandon the trade, in addition to disrupting on-going transactions. However, there are limitations as well, for instance, the raid may be ill timed and resources would go to waste if authorities make few or no arrests during the street sweeps. Dorn and Murji (1992), argue that, while this method is effective, it targets the symptoms rather than the cause, which is ineffective because the drug users and low-level dealers arrested during the street sweeps are not the main cause of the problem. The authorities let the main culprits go scot-free, and the latter just take their trade to other new markets leading to proliferation of drug dealing and use to many areas. Consequently, the public develop resentment against authorities since they perceive the latter to be the source of their woes, including the increasing number of youths who abuse drugs (Bean 2008). Finally, authorities may curb drug trafficking by reducing the demand for drugs; by preventing youths from accessing drugs and curing those already into the habits, and educating the public on the ill effects of drug use. This achieves control of the drug situation without direct contact with the drug dealers themselves; low-level dealers will abandon the trade if the local market is not available anymore. For instance, if the public in a certain town know about the ill effects of drugs and avoid them, drug barons would have no option than to take their trade somewhere else. However, due to disparities in society due to different education levels, wealth and religion among other factors, it may not be possible to eliminate drug use by this method alone. As is evident even in the most civilised of societies in Europe, drug problems are everywhere, albeit at a reduced rate (CAN 2000; Yates 1998). In conclusion, the best approach to tackling drug markets and dealers is a combination of all the available approaches, bearing in mind that drug use is a condition in the society that has to be controlled. Question 8: To what extent might prioritising drug treatment over criminal justice interventions help reduce drug-related crime? Drug treatment is the approach whereby drug addiction is a pathological situation and addicts receive medical assistance that is different from considering it a criminal offence that results in arresting, detaining, trying and sentencing drug addicts as provided by law. According to the medicalization model, drug use is to blame for the criminal activities of an addict, while the criminalisation model states that drug addiction is not an excuse for criminal activity. According to the medicalization approach, authorities should treat drug addict criminals as addicts first, and offer them treatment before trying them in a court of law. The medicalization model assumes that everyone has some positive inside them and instead of blaming them for the addiction, authorities should attempt to reform them (Clifford Schaffer 2011). While this approach sounds idealistic and unrealistic, it has its merits, first serving as a deterrent to drug use. Parssinen (1983, p.219) argues that treating drug addicts like criminals only results in more of them, as the fight against drugs is to blame for the exponential increase in the number of people abusing drugs. When police hunt down traffickers, the latter have no option but to flee and look for new markets where they recruit new customers into the habit. However, it does not mean that their old customers have quit the habit, only that they will be searching for the drug peddlers, and not the other way round (Tham 1995, 120). Singer (2001) argues that, in contrast to criminalization, medicalization offers a permanent solution; treatment involves a psychological aspect that ensures that an addict does not go back to the habit after making full recovery. The psychological aspects involve training the addict to take control of their actions by ensuring they have a clear idea of the effects of drug use, and, therefore, less likely to try it again. Criminalisation only results in a few years of jail time, or just a warning, and the person is free to try the drug again, but this time avoiding arrest. This means that criminalisation does not fully solve the problem but deals with the symptoms. However, medicalization alone cannot solve the criminal aspect of drug use since there are some addicts who were criminals before they became addicts. Therefore, the recommendation is that, apart from few cases like those of the newly addicted, treatment should go together with law enforcement and control for maximum effect. Read More