Some responses / Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, South Australia.

  • South Australia. Royal Commission into the Non-medical Use of Drugs
Date:
[1978]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Some responses / Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, South Australia. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    21/92 page 19
    using those that are not approved. It was explained to us that if a community, or a group within a community, defines the use of a particular drug as “dangerous”’, “‘forbidden’’, or ‘“‘destructive to self’, then those who wish to protest or deviate from the general views of that community or group may well use that drug as a symbol of their protest rather than for its own sake. Or again, those who through curiosity or disposition are attracted to taking risks may use the drug if it is available in a situation perceived by them to be risky. In this way, social or legal disapproval may actually induce some people to use drugs which otherwise would be unattractive to them. It is apparent to us then, from the responses that have been made so far, that unless the term ‘‘drug”’ is given an unduly restrictive meaning, the category “drug user’ can be applied to almost everybody in the community. It is not possible to classify “‘drug users”’ as psychologically or socially abnormal, and they certainly cannot be distinguished as groups, or as psychological types from the rest of the community in any practical way. At the same time there are others, though not a majority, who either because of prolonged compulsive use of a particularly active drug which has chronically affected their mental health, or because drug use is merely an aspect of an otherwise deviant, destructive, violent or psychopathic personality, can be classified to some extent as psychologically or socially “abnormal”. Even here, it is necessary to be cautious. We have been reminded by, among others, the visiting American psychiatrist, Dr Thomas Szasz, of the need to consider the implications of the “mental illness” label, whether applied to drug users or to others. Also during the hearings witnesses who attributed personality disorders in patients within their clinical experience to the patients’ use of drugs usually accepted that it was not easy to determine that the drug use had caused the personality disorder, or whether other circumstances may have been the cause of both the mental disorder and the drug use, or indeed whether the mental disorder itself caused the drug use. We have become aware that any view of “‘drug users” is coloured by whether the observer believes drug-taking to be a “drug problem” or a “people problem’’. The first view puts greater stress on the properties of drugs and on control of their distribution and availability. This view forms at least part of the basis for the criminal model of dealing with the “drug problem” which directs sanctions at persons possessing, distributing or dealing in certain drugs. The second view considers it a problem of human behaviour and sees solutions in either the pragmatic adjustment of human relationships, or the application of the social and behavioural sciences. This view forms the basis of what is often described as the psychosocial model for dealing with the problem. Not every drug user, of course, uses the same drug or drugs, nor at the same rate. Too simple a view of drug use can be unfortunate, if for example, it places in the same category a school child who has once smoked marijuana or once taken a supposed mood-altering tablet, and a person who has been dependent on heroin administered intravenously for ten years. Many of the submissions to us, understandably enough, do not appear to realise the differences in intensity and quality of the behaviour io
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3