CAUSES

Tending towards the retreatist theory of drug addiction Buchanan says that for
those who experience social exclusion and disadvantage prior to drug use, the onset of
excessive drug taking in early adulthood may be a form of escape, a way to deal with
the lack of resources available to the rest of society. But this sense of social exclusion
lends itself to further exclusion setting in motion a cycle of increasing exclusion that is
exacerbated by the discourse of the war on drugs and a strategy that is concerned with
punishment, control and exclusion of drug users rather than care, rehabilitation and
inclusion. The result is widespread discrimination. The constant experience of
marginalization leads problem drug users to internalize their problems and blame
themselves (Buchanan 2004).
Room (2005) has argued that stigma and marginalization of problematic drug
and alcohol use are important factors in adverse outcomes and that this is an area of
study that has been relatively neglected in the literature. Although he posits that there is
no necessary relation between poverty and stigmatization and marginalization he does
argue that those who are more affluent have more social and economic capital and are
better able to protect themselves from these forces.
Recent research on family violence has also employed within-subject designs to study
the effects of alcohol use on violent behavior. Research on newlywed couples using
assessments of both partners at multiple time points have shown that, among newlywed
couples who reported both verbal and physical aggression during their first year of
marriage, husbands alcohol use was higher preceding violent aggression incidents than
preceding nonviolent incidents (Leonard & Quigley, 1997). An analysis of follow-up data
from the same couples at the time of their third wedding anniversary contrasted alcoholrelated and nonalcohol-related violent events reported by the same couples. This study
found that wives (but not husbands) reported that violent episodes in which husbands
were drinking included more acts of violence and were more likely to involve severe
violence than violent events in which the husband was not drinking. The inconsistency
in the husband and wife reports, though, leaves open the possibility that the results are

explained by wives perceiving that their husbands are more violent when they drink
when they in fact are not.
In Matters of Substance, Edwards (2004) examines the history, culture and language
behind each drug - their physical and psychological effects, medical uses, trade routes
and the involvement of big business and control and legislation. Edwards considers
key issues such as why do people become addicted, which drugs are most dangerous
and what causes a drugs epidemic. The author gives some space to the question of
drug use and deprivation and argues that social deprivation sometimes influences drug
taking. Edwards chaired the working group that drafted the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs report which for the first time told the government directly that
deprivation was a strongly relevant item on the drug policy agenda(ACMD 1998).
Edwards describes deprivation as an outwardly observable cluster of disadvantages,
deprivation is also an inner state - a chronic not feeling good about ones life position, a
sense that other people are doing better and of there being no way out or up.
A paper by Bresnihan estimated that 80% of crime in Ireland was drug related
and came from five exceptionally deprived areas in Dublin. The paper which focused on
young people engaged in criminal activity, identified socio-economic contributory factors
such as poverty and lack of educational and employment opportunities. These broadly
defined socio-economic disadvantages were compounded by family-based and
individualized problems, for instance alcoholism in the home, juvenile alcohol and drug
abuse, poor parenting including child abuse and neglect, lack of self-esteem, boredom
and truancy. Irish research has been unequivocal in identifying poverty, low social
status, school failure, family disruption and large family size as characteristics of young
offenders and suggests that persistent serious offending may be associated with quite
small, circumscribed communities of especially disadvantaged families to an even
greater extent (Bresnihan 1999).
Roberts states that a credible drug strategy must address the social causes and
contexts of problem use. This means, for example, that tackling homelessness and
providing services for sex workers can do a great deal to reduce the damage done by
hard drugs, both to users and the community. It means that cutting child poverty and

continuing to improve provision for looked-after children is likely to do much more to

prevent problem use in the future than putting up posters or doing a talk down at the
local school. It means that we should not be surprised if released prisoners who have
received treatment on the inside drift back into drug dependency and offending if they
are released with nowhere to go, nothing to do and nobody to turn to(Roberts 2003).

DRUG INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Most contemporary substance use prevention programs are school-based.
Morgan described how schools based drug prevention has developed historically from
initial programs which relied on presenting the facts about the effects of drug use with
dramatic descriptions of what can happen with a view to scaring young people from
experimentation. Later approaches placed more emphasis on personal factors, i.e.
enhancement of self-esteem, which was expected to prevent initiation to drugs. Later
the emphasis shifted to social influence including developing resistance skills. However,
more recently there has been a move toward multi component programs which include
a broad array of prevention activities in home, school and community rather than
isolated schools programs (Morgan, 2001).
Early school-based interventions relied solely on informational approaches and
taught students about the effect of drugs, how they are used, and the dangers of drugs
use. The goal of these programs was to change beliefs and attitudes about drug use
and thereby modify drug use behaviors. These hold the assumption that if young people
knew and understood the potential dangers of drugs use they would subsequently
decide not to take them. Although these programs can increase knowledge about and
change attitudes towards drugs, actual substance use behaviors remain largely
unaffected. For example stressing the dangers of drug use may attract high risk thrill
seekers. In fact there is some evidence that simply providing information about the
dangers of drinking, smoking and drug use may actually increase predisposition to drug
use in some circumstance (Stuart, 1974; Botvin, 1999, 2000).

Selective prevention strategies target subsets of the population who are deemed
to be at a higher risk for substance abuse (e.g., children of adult alcoholics, school
dropouts, or other biological, psychological, social or environmental factors known to be
associated with substance abuse). Selective prevention programs are typically
presented to the entire subgroup regardless of the individuals degree of risk within that
group. Examples include special clubs and groups for children of alcoholics, and skills
training programs specific to children of substance-abusing parents, and the
Strengthening Families Program. Indicated prevention strategies have the mission to
identify individuals who are exhibiting early signs of substance abuse and to target them
with special programs. These programs typically address risk factors associated with
the individuals such as low self-esteem, conduct disorder, alienation from parents and
positive peer group. Less emphasis is placed on addressing environmental influences
such as community values. They are designed to stop the progression of substance
abuse and other related disorder, and can target multiple behaviors simultaneously.
Examples of indicated preventions include student assistance programs where teachers
and counselors would refer students exhibiting multiple issues (e.g., academic,
behavioral, emotional problems) to counseling groups or family-focused programs for
the prevention of substance abuse, and specific programs such as the Reconnecting
Youth developed by (Eggert et al. 1990).

In earlier drug prevention programs it was suggested that if young people really
knew the consequences of taking drugs, they were unlikely to do so. Tactics include
talks given by people who have overcome problems with drugs or by parents of children
who have died as a result of drug misuse and are determined to let people know the
real truth about drugs. However the literature on the effects of fearful communication
suggests that they do not contribute greatly to prevention. Study found that fearful
communication seems to elicit defensive reaction and are generally ineffective in
preventing people from experimenting with substances. In relation to fear appeals
targeted at adolescent audiences has identified that this approach is ineffective and can
backfire. It has been found that high levels of threat have produced a boomerang effect

so that as the threat increases so adolescent attitudes towards drug use become more
rather than less favorable. It has also been reported that fear appeals are only effective
for audiences with low levels of awareness (Patterson, 1997) which is not usually the
case in relation to drug use.
Social approach programs are based on the assumption that young people use
drugs because of direct or indirect social influences from peers, family, the media as
well as from internal pressures e.g. the desire to look cool and popular .McGrath also
suggests that the other assumption is that many young people start with negative
attitudes to alcohol and drug use but rarely have to justify their unfavorable attitudes
towards these behaviors. As a result, when challenged, their beliefs were easily
undermined. There are several components of social influence approaches but the
overall aim is to increase awareness of social influence over drug use, to address the
issue of resistance to social pressure to use drugs and to teach skills for effectively
coping with these pressures. For example, normative education targets the popular
belief that drug use is more prevalent than is actually the case and that it is socially
acceptable. Secondly, students learn resistance skills including assertiveness, goal
setting, problem solving in an interactive ways such as small group discussions, role
playing and demonstrations. Thirdly, students learn about the tactics of advertisements
such as those for alcohol and learn counter-arguments to these messages (McGrath,
2001).

In the area of drug prevention, schools based interventions have been examined
extensively. It has been well established that these programs can result in significant
increases in knowledge about drugs and improved attitudes. Well-designed prevention
programs are also capable of delaying or reducing the use of substances. More
recently, studies are focusing more on looking what are the effective characteristics of
these intervention programs. Meta analyses of a number of programs allows for
comparison of effect sizes across studies and is especially suitable for attempting to
gauge quantitatively the collective outcomes of several studies under different
conditions and with different populations (Tobler et al, 2000).

According to one meta-analysis, there was strong evidence to suggest that

interactive method (e.g. role play) of delivering drug prevention interventions was more
effective than non-interactive methods (e.g. a lecture) in reducing drug use. Unlike non
interactive methods, interactive methods can give students the chance to communicate
which might account for the apparent superiority of interactive approaches. For
example, participants could receive feedback and constructive criticisms and have a
chance to practice newly acquired refusal skills with peers (Jones, 2006).
FAMILY AS A FACTOR
Parental substance abuse is highly disruptive to family functioning. It is a risk
factor towards negative parenting practices. Their children usually have a higher rate of
exhibiting behavioral and emotional problems, and they also have a higher rate of child
abuse and neglect. Children may receive from their drug-using parents limited time and
attention, inconsistent care, and a lack of emotional availability and control, not to
mention that the easier availability of drugs to the children and the parents positive
attitudes towards drug use may lead to the likelihood of inter-generational substance
abuse. All these could cause ineffective parenting and affect adversely the parent-child
attachment. Further, if we put the ecological model into context, parent substance abuse
is not necessarily the causal factor responsible for poor child outcome, as child outcome
could be a result of personal, developmental, familial and environmental factors. More
often, it is a combination of various factors associated with the parental substance
abuse, such as poor parenting practices, poor or even violent marital relationship,
limited social support, economic disadvantages, that make their children at risk. In
addition, even if the parents see themselves as needing treatment help, current services
may not sufficiently balance managing child protection issues with engaging the parent
in treatment. This serves as a barrier for drug-using parents, especially mothers, when
they try to access treatment services. Thus prevention and intervention strategies
should not only focus on the parental substance use per se. Rather, based on the
ecological model they should also address the factors in various domains, and the
complex interplay among them (Dawe et al., 2006).

Melrose and Brodie (2001) reported that many young people felt that nothing
would have prevented them from taking drugs when they did, as they wouldnt have
listened to anyone at the time. Many young people also felt that they would not need the
help of outside agencies to stop taking drugs if they should decide to do so. They stated
that their drug taking wasnt a problem and that they could stop when and if they wanted
to. This study appears to contradict the evidence cited above by Jeffery et al. (2002).
The United Kingdoms Anti-drugs Coordinators Annual Report 2000/2001 (2001) states
that educating children about the risks associated with drugs can delay or avoid the
start of experimentation. However, a review notes that evaluations that have attempted
to demonstrate results in terms of reducing or preventing drug use have proved
inconclusive'' (Locatenet, 2001). One researcher stated that anti-drugs campaigns are
more likely to encourage young people to experiment with drugs (Plant, 2002). There
does not appear to be a consensus on the value of drug prevention/education in the
current literature.

The literature on the effects of family shows that it can be family process that is
much more important than family structure in the development of deviant behaviour in
general and also in relation to substance use (ACMD, 1998, Wells & Rankin, 1991). For
example the fact of living in a single parent family or a reconstituted family is less
significant than family process factors e.g. how conflict between parents is dealt with,
the presence or absence of affection or parental supervision. Variable like parental
warmth, affection and consistency in supervision which are known to be important
parameters of effective parenting are also major influences in the development of
substance misuse.

International research shows that interventions targeting family support rather

than specific drug intervention show great potential and have resulted in positive
outcomes in social behavior including reductions in substance misuse. There is also
evidence that family based interventions with older, at risk youths may result in better

outcomes than other interventions in a systematic review of controlled studies of

parenting programs to prevent tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse in children concluded
that parenting programs can be effective in reducing or preventing substance use. The
most effective were those that shared an emphasis on active parental involvement and
on developing skills in social competence, self-regulation and parenting (Petrie et al,
2007). They recommended that further work was needed to investigate the processes of
change and to look at the long term effectiveness of these interventions.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC) (1996) notes that
parental involvement may involve parents taking an active part in helping to establish
the school policies and procedures, as well as in the implementation, support and
reinforcement of school health programs. Parental support enables students to relate
health messages at school to a broader social context. Parent and community
involvement in comprehensive, multifaceted approaches promotes consistent messages
and strong partnerships. School programs are strengthened when complemented by a
parent component and when social messages are reinforced at a community or media
level (Dusenbury and Falco 1995; Perry and Kelder 1992; Perry et al. 1996).

in a review of family support interventions in an Irish context concluded that

family therapy approaches are promising provided the intervention is tailored to suit the
family definition of need and that it restores the familys capacity to solve its own
problems. asserted that although drug prevention has broadened its horizons having
matured away from a singular focus on the individual there was still a need for much
more work in this area and recommended that the services that act under the ambit of
family support need to have a clearer, more defined and resources role in drug
prevention. (Nic Gabhainn and Walsh 2000)

Such families typically suffer from deterioration of family relationships, and

parents reported to have increased level of anxiety, stress and other behavioral
disorders, as there is a pervasive worry about the well-being of their drug-using children
in their absence. A formerly loving, or at least stable parent-child relationship, is now
characterized by suspicion and mistrust after the discovery of drug use by children. As a
large amount of time and energy are spent, often with a long period of time in both the
discovery and also in treatment, this ongoing stress and anxiety pose threats to the
parents job performance and marital relations. Some may even rely on substance such
as alcohol to de-stress themselves. The social stigma attached to drug use also makes
the parents and other family members, such as sibling, unwilling to seek support from
friends in schools and relatives, as it is difficult to find others who can render support in
a non-judgmental way. Needs of the non-drug-using sibling are pushed sidelines as the
family is busy struggling with the issues stemming from the drug-using child. Some
studies also point out the increased financial strain on the family, and its related conflicts
between the parents and drug-using children, when the addicted children ask for money
to buy more drugs. Overall, drug use in children creates significant risk to their family
members, causing tremendous negative impact on them physically, emotionally and
financially. It exerts a ripple effect on the entire family and may extend to other domains
such as the parents work, siblings schooling, and level of social support. Like the drugusers, the family members also need support in managing the emotional and related
physical impact as a result of drug use in the family.(CADCA, 2008).
Not surprisingly, the quality of family life (i.e., effectiveness of family management,
structure and coping strategies, the level of parent-child attachment, the nature of rules
and parental expectations) has been shown to play a very significant role in predicting
youthful substance abuse (Bray, Adams, Getz, & Baer, 2001). Parental alcohol or other
substance dependence increases the risk of a young person developing substance use
problems, involving a complex mix of genetic and environmental factors. Having a
particularly difficult family background (e.g., physical or sexual abuse, and/or forced

institutionalization) is also considered a significant risk factor for a range of problems,

including substance abuse.
RELATIONSHIP TO HOMELESSNESS
Substance abuse is often a cause of homelessness. Addictive disorders disrupt
relationships with family and friends and often cause people to lose their jobs. For
people who are already struggling to pay their bills, the onset or exacerbation of an
addiction may cause them to lose their housing. A 2008 survey by the United States
Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness.
Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults
(reported by 68% of cities). Substance abuse was also mentioned by 12% of cities as
one of the top three causes of homelessness for families. According to Didenko and
Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a
major reason for their becoming homeless.
In many situations, however, substance abuse is a result of homelessness rather than a
cause. People who are homeless often turn to drugs and alcohol to cope with their
situations. They use substances in an attempt to attain temporary relief from their
problems. In reality, however, substance dependence only exacerbates their problems
and decreases their ability to achieve employment stability and get off the streets.
Additionally, some people may view drug and alcohol use as necessary to be accepted
among the homeless community (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007).
Breaking an addiction is difficult for anyone, especially for substance abusers who are
homeless. To begin with, motivation to stop using substances may be poor. For many
homeless people, survival is more important than personal growth and development,
and finding food and shelter take a higher priority than drug counseling. Many homeless
people have also become estranged from their families and friends. Without a social
support network, recovering from a substance addiction is very difficult. Even if they do
break their addictions, homeless people may have difficulty remaining sober while living
on the streets where substances are so widely used (Fisher and Roget, 2009).
Unfortunately, many treatment programs focus on abstinence only programming, which

is less effective than harm-reduction strategies and does not address the possibility of
relapse (National Health Care for the Homeless Council, 2007).
For many homeless people, substance abuse co-occurs with mental illness. Often,
people with untreated mental illnesses use street drugs as an inappropriate form of selfmedication. Homeless people with both substance disorders and mental illness
experience additional obstacles to recovery, such as increased risk for violence and
victimization and frequent cycling between the streets, jails, and emergency rooms
(Fisher and Roget, 2009). Sadly, these people are often unable to find treatment
facilities that will help them. Many programs for homeless people with mental illnesses
do not accept people with substance abuse disorders, and many programs for
homeless substance abusers do not treat people with mental illnesses.
DRUG EDUCATION
The factors that teachers do have an opportunity to address, and which have been
shown to help young people avoid substance use problems, lie in the realm of
understanding and coping effectively with social influences that promote substance use,
and supporting the development of other pertinent personal and social skills (e.g.,
assertiveness, decision making and stress management). Although drug-specific
information (e.g., short-term effects of various drugs) is an important component of
current best practice, the drug lectures that many grew up with are not effective, and
have in fact been shown to be harmful in that they served to increase experimentation.
Affective education programs that focused on attitudes and values also failed to
produce desired effects, perhaps because they were too abstract to truly engage young
people that is, they did not explicitly relate skill-building to drug specific situations
(Paglia & Room, 1999).
Drug education should be linked to the cognitive, emotional, and social development of
students and to their use patterns (Paglia & Room, 1999; Roberts et al., 2001). While
cognitive ability in pre-adolescence is characterized by black and white, concrete
thinking, during early and mid-adolescence, the ability to handle abstract or grey
concepts increases (Quadrel, Fischoff, & Davis, 1993, Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). At the

same time, young people at this point are establishing their own identity and are
beginning to test new ideas apart from those drawn from parents and other authorities
(Roberts et al.). This developmental process may be characterized as one of
experimentation. In a gradual, hesitant process the adolescent takes on new
viewpoints and tries out various behaviors. As time goes on, earlier opinions and ways
of behaving may be rejected, modified in some respects, or regarded as acceptable. So,
while simplistic concepts such as good drugs/bad drugs or any use of illegal drugs is
abuse may resonate for elementary school students, by junior high school, it is less
likely they will. Early adolescence is often associated with a number of traits or
behaviors (e.g., risk taking, questioning authority, the desire to be part of a peer group,
seeking novel and exciting experiences, a lack of caution, and a need to satisfy
curiosity) that could lead to substance use. To be relevant and useful, universal drug
education at this point needs to address the traits that can arise as a result of this
intense period of identity development (Roberts et al.).
To increase the likelihood of a positive impact on student substance use, drug-specific
information needs to be couched in an interactive, activity-oriented process metaanalysis provided useful insight into the type of interactivity that is most effective.
Programs emphasizing student to student interaction, rather than student-to-teacher
interaction, showed significantly more positive effects on student substance use. In this
process, students need to have the opportunity to interact in a small group context, to
test out and exchange ideas on how to handle drug use situations and to gain peer
feedback about the acceptability of their ideas in a safe environment. Tobler (2000)
even goes so far as to suggest that it is the exchange of ideas and experiences
between students, and the opportunity to practice new skills, and to obtain feedback on
skills practice that acts as a catalyst for change rather than any critical content of the
program.
Since information-only drug education programs have been found to have no effect or to
increase substance use, it is fair to ask whether there is a role for drug-specific
information at all. The answer is yes, but the information needs to be fully accurate and
balanced (i.e., acknowledging the benefits that users perceive from their use), otherwise

young people whose experience differs will question the credibility of all information
passed along during a drug education class . Even if younger participants initially accept
messages that focus solely on the negative aspects of drug use, once they receive
more accurate information, there is a danger that all the messages received earlier will
lose credibility (Paglia & Room).
There is evidence that interactive drug education programs are nearly always
more effective than non-interactive ones (Stead and Angus, 2004). Interactive programs
have been defined by Tobler et al. (reviews discussed in Stead and Angus (2004)) as
those with a higher degree of active participation by all students, through discussion,
brainstorming or skills practice, as opposed to those focusing largely on teacher
presentations and teacher-led discussion. Tobler attributes this to development of
interpersonal competence (the ability to negotiate drug offer situations skillfully and
without losing face in the peer group) and better understanding of actual levels of drug
use and views of drug use in the peer group.

Some drug prevention programs are delivered to young people by their peers.
The evidence shows that peers can be effective delivery agents of drug education.
However, the evidence is mixed on whether they tend to be more effective than adults.
The use of peers may ensure interactive learning, but lessons led by teachers can also
be interactive. Some reviewers have concluded that other factors are more important in
determining a programs success (McDonald, 2004; Stead and Angus, 2004). These
may be the credibility of the individuals leading the program, whether peers or teachers,
the content, the level of interaction, age group and the number of sessions. An
additional benefit from peer-led education can be the positive impact on the peer
educators themselves (Mentor UK, 2011)
Drug education should be age-appropriate and timely, so children are armed with
basic information before they first encounter drugs. Early experimentation can shape
future substance use, for example one study found that children who had tried
cigarettes just once by age 11 were more likely to smoke at age 14 even after adjusting

for other factors (Fidler et al, 2006), and smokers who start early are less likely to quit.
Designing appropriate education is complicated by the fact that individuals in a class
may have very different levels of knowledge and experiences, also conclude that it does
not seem that drug education is more effective at particular ages. It is, however, harder
to measure the effectiveness of interventions for younger age groups, since the real
impact will be felt years later.

Schools already implement policies and programs that support young people in
their help seeking, as well as providing educational environments where young people
can be engaged with their learning and experience success. They have also
implemented programs to address harmful substance use at end of school year
celebrations. These indicate an active supportive role for the school counsellor,
although there is no indication of which personnel would take on the case management
of students. Some specialist teachers are identified but the role of the classroom
teacher is not specified. In the last decade schools have increased their involvement in
creating links with outside service providers, notably through NSW Healthfunded School
Link officers (NSW Department of Health, 2003).

Deed argued that there are two assumptions behind the concept of early
intervention and schools: firstly that schools are appropriate settings for substance
misuse and prevention activity; and second, that school staff can identify and manage
high risk students. A key question in this research was whether school staff could
operationalize the technical procedures of risk assessment and management. The
research revealed that teacher assessment for early intervention with students involved
only short term practical or pragmatic goals with the aim of maintaining educational

processes. In other words, health initiatives were viewed through an educational lens. A
shared framework of practice with health practitioners was recommended to expand the
goals of early interventions in schools (Deed, 2007). There needs to be clear articulation
of the aims and strategies of early intervention activities in schools, as well as of the
expected drug use and the educational outcomes desired. This might help clarify the
roles for school staff.

The role of risk and protective factors in understanding and

responding to drug use in young people
Drug use is not simply an individual behavior, but is shaped by a range of macroenvironmental factors including the economic, social and physical environment. A range
of factors such as income, employment, poverty, education, access to community
resources, gender, age and ethnicity can impact on health outcomes including mental
health and drug use patterns. Communities and families at higher risk are those that
face economic disadvantage, social or cultural discrimination, isolation, neighborhood
violence, population density and poor housing conditions, and lack of facilities and
services. People from lower socio-economic status groups and the unemployed are at
much greater risk of substance abuse, and are at risk of earlier initiation itself a risk
factor (Stuart and Price 2000). Complex personal, psychological, social and
environmental factors must be taken into account in understanding drug-use and the
effectiveness of drug education
Evans and Bosworth (1997) note that to be effective, drug education programs
must address environmental, personality and behavioral risk factors identified through
research and move beyond behaviorist approaches that look at individual behavior to
understand drug use. Catalano and Hawkins (1996, p 152) state that it is clear that
multiple biological, psychological and social factors at multiple levels in different
domains (that is within the family, school, peer, group and community) contribute to
some degree to drug use and other risk behaviors. Brounstein and Zweig (1999)
propose that drug use can be understood as the interplay between the individual and
environmental domains of society, family, community, school and peers. They suggest

that building on and enhancing protective factors is a promising approach that focuses
on developing positive elements in individuals and environments.
Social risk factors include the influence of family, peers, and the environment Families in
which the use of alcohol or drugs is high, as well as chaotic families, tend to have more
incidence of teenage drug and alcohol abuse. Adolescents whose peer group is
involved with alcohol and drugs, and those who engage in other problem behaviors,
such as rebelliousness and delinquent activities, are more at risk. Individual
characteristics such as poor academic achievement and low self-esteem, and the lack
of motivation are positively correlated with use. A final risk factor is employment during
the school year (Beman, 1995).
A comprehensive study of risk and protective factors conducted with Victorian
secondary students (Bond et al. 2000), found an association between the number of risk
and protective factors and the use of licit and illicit drugs among this group of students.
Importantly for schools, it was found that a small number of protective factors could
reduce drug use. The study suggests that an individuals drug use needs to be
understood as a complex interrelationship of risk and protective factors, including the
broader social and environmental factors within which he/she lives. and other studies
strongly suggest that schools can make a difference through acting as a protective
factor in a students life. Schools can enhance student resilience through promoting
caring relationships, setting high but positive expectations and providing opportunities
for youth participation and contribution.
(Benard and Constantine 2001), in a USA-based study, note that longitudinal
developmental studies on resilience provide three important lessons for schools. First,
most students do and can make it. When young people are tracked into later life more
than half the highrisk children do succeed and are caring and competent adults.
Second, most young people succeed because somewhere in their families, schools and
communities they have experienced important protective factors that gave them a sense
of belonging and meaning. Third, teachers and schools are more often than not
identified as the turnaround people and places that tipped the scales from risk to

resilience. Turnaround teachers are characterized as those who meet students basic
needs for safety, belonging, respect, power, accomplishment and learning.

Galt (1997 [1.67]) reported that illicit drugs were readily available and accessible
and an accepted part of youth culture, and concluded that for drug education to be
successful it has to take account of different motives and patterns of drug use. In
contrast Burr (1987) considered the social profile of heroin users, which included factors
such as family breakdowns and high rates of truancy and delinquency prior to heroin
use. The researchers argued that the "local criminal subculture in South London
provided the means for rapid expansion of heroin use and that heroin use was an
extension rather than the cause of delinquent behavior among working class youth in
the study. Study sought to explore decision making with regards to drug taking and
observed multiple influences, which the researchers categorized into five individual-level
influences

(functions

physical/psychological

of
state,

substance
role

use,

substance-related

commitments,

and

expectancies,

boundaries)

and

five

social/contextual-level influences (environment, availability, finance, friends, peers, and

the media) also argued that a crucial step in becoming a regular user lies in matching
the effects of the drug to the social context in which it is used.

EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL DRUGS

Effects on the Family
The user's preoccupation with the substance, plus its effects on mood and
performance, can lead to marital problems and poor work performance or dismissal.
Drug use can disrupt family life and create destructive patterns of codependency, that
is, the spouse or whole family, out of love or fear of consequences, inadvertently
enables the user to continue using drugs by covering up, supplying money, or denying
there is a problem. Pregnant drug users, because of the drugs themselves or poor self-

care in general, bear a much higher rate of low birth-weight babies than the average.
Many drugs (e.g., crack and heroin) cross the placental barrier, resulting in addicted
babies who go through withdrawal soon after birth, and fetal alcohol syndrome can
affect children of mothers who consume alcohol during pregnancy. Pregnant women
who acquire the AIDS virus through intravenous drug use pass the virus to their infant.
Effects on Society
Drug abuse affects society in many ways. In the workplace it is costly in terms of
lost work time and inefficiency. Drug users are more likely than nonusers to have
occupational accidents, endangering themselves and those around them. Over half of
the highway deaths in the United States involve alcohol. Drug-related crime can disrupt
neighborhoods due to violence among drug dealers, threats to residents, and the crimes
of the addicts themselves. In some neighborhoods, younger children are recruited as
lookouts and helpers because of the lighter sentences given to juvenile offenders, and
guns have become commonplace among children and adolescents. The great majority
of homeless people have either a drug or alcohol problem or a mental illnessmany
have all three.
People who are addicted very often turn to crime as a means of paying for their
addiction. This can involve stealing or fraud to obtain the funds necessary to bankroll
their addiction. This can start with stealing from ones partner, family or friends but can
spread to include their employer or several organisations.
Another aspect is that of the cost of maintaining a police force that have to deal
with the after-effects of addiction. One such example and one that we hear a great deal
about in the media is that of binge drinking.
People who have developed an addiction to drugs and alcohol very often engage
in drunken, anti-social behavior, usually in town and city centers up and down the
country. The police have the job of dealing with fights or semi-conscious people lying in
the street which is due to the effects of drugs and alcohol consumption .The majority of
crime committed in the UK is usually drug-related. Burglary, muggings, robberies etc.
are all ways of funding an addiction and the more serious the addiction the greater the

chance of these being accompanied by violence. There are people who are so
desperate to have a fix or are completely controlled by their addiction that will do
anything to service this. If this means using violence then they will do so In this case
their needs have overtaken any thoughts of rational or civilized behavior. They are not
thinking of anyone else but themselves as they are consumed by their addiction.

There is an undeniable link between substance abuse and

delinquency. Arrest, adjudication, and intervention by the juvenile
justice system are eventual consequences for many youth engaged
in alcohol and other drug use. It cannot be claimed that substance
abuse causes delinquent behavior or delinquency causes alcohol
and other drug use. However, the two behaviors are strongly
correlated and often bring about school and family problems,
involvement with negative peer groups, a lack of neighborhood
social controls, and physical or sexual abuse (Hawkins et al., 1987;
Wilson and Howell, 1993). Possession and use of alcohol and other
drugs are illegal for all youth. Beyond that, however, there is strong
evidence of an association between alcohol and other drug use and
delinquent behavior of juveniles. Substance abuse is associated with
both violent and income-generating crimes by youth. This increases
fear among community residents and the demand for juvenile and
criminal justice services, thus increasing the burden on these
resources.

Gangs,

drug

trafficking,

prostitution,

and

growing

numbers of youth homicides are among the social and criminal

justice problems often linked to adolescent substance abuse.
The addiction process is a compulsive, obsessive disease, which is not a
symptom of some other physical or emotional disorder. "This means that other problems
a chemical dependent may have--such as physical illness, disturbed family
relationships, depression, unresolved grief issues, and trouble at school or on the job--

cannot be treated effectively until the person stops using chemicals" (Schaeffer, 1987,
p. 19). Chemical dependency is seen as a progressive, chronic, potentially fatal
disease, which always gets worse if the person continues to use. Addiction is defined as
loss of control and choice over the use of alcohol and drugs.