National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper

More documents

Recommendations

Info

52 Parental ATS use In addition to the potential adverse effects of maternal drug use during pregnancy (outlined above in respect to ATS), research has found that rates of behavioural and emotional problems are more prevalent among children of illicit drug users, particularly oppositionaldefiant and non-compliant behaviours (e.g., Smith, 1993; Willens et al., 1995). In a study conducted by Patton (2003), reports from service providers indicated a range of problematic and dysfunctional behaviours in children raised in families where illicit drugs were used: fear of abandonment; separation anxiety; fear of losing their carer; fear of being left alone; self-blame for their parent’s departure; collecting food and hoarding it; overeating; intense fear of sirens and the police; inappropriate sexualised behaviour; sleeping difficulties; aggression (p.8). The impact of parental use has been illustrated by research conducted by the Department for Community Development (DCD) in WA (Leek, Seneque & Ward, 2004) found that in cases involving children: • Drug and alcohol use contributed to 57% of cases studied; • Drug and alcohol use was the second most common contributing factor for an application to DCD following neglect; • Where a single main reason could be identified, drug and alcohol use was the main reason in 23% of cases; • 44% of respondents to care and protection applications were drug and alcohol users; and • Of those known to be AOD users, 42% were using psychostimulants and 54% were polydrug users. The ‘Nobody’s Clients Project’ conducted by Odyssey House in Victoria reported on the experiences of 48 primary school aged children whose parents had accessed treatment for drug dependence (Gruenert et al., 2004). It was reported that: • By age 7, on average, children had moved house over five times and attended two schools; • The majority of primary caregivers of the children were unemployed and relied on government payments; • Over 50% of parents reported that their children had been negatively affected by their drug use and 70% that their child’s exposure to active drug use was ‘distressing’; • Child protection services were actively involved with 41% of the cases and had past involvement with 67% of the cases; and • 24% of the children obtained scores in the clinically abnormal range on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).
53 The recently released paper by the Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) (2006), ‘Drug Use in the Family: Impacts and Implications for Children’, highlighted the lack of direct research evidence on children affected by parental drug use. Consequently, impacts can only be inferred from current data sources, as was presented in the report. Data from the 2004 NDSHS were re-analysed according to the sub-sample of adults who lived in the same household as dependent children under the age of 12 years. Analyses for risk of child exposure to alcohol and other drug use in these households were conducted by primary drug of use. It was concluded that for every 1000 adults in Australia, 49 dependent children under the age of 12 are living in a household with an adult who had used methamphetamine in the last year, and 8.4 children are living in households with an adult using methamphetamine at least monthly (Australian National Council on Drugs, 2006). The ANCD report also analysed the ‘Patterns of Amphetamine Use’ database obtained by the Crime and Misconduct Commission. This sample consisted of 690 individuals of which 207 individuals (56% women) reported having children. In comparison to amphetamine users without children, those with children were significantly more likely to use base and crystal methamphetamine, as well as benzodiazepines (Australian National Council on Drugs, 2006). Of note, over a six-month period, those with children reported using crystal methamphetamine on twice as many days as those without children (55.1 versus 27.6 days). Of further concern was the prevalence of family violence in these households. It was reported that a higher proportion of amphetamine users with children had experienced physical violence from partners and nearly three times as many experienced regular partner violence compared to amphetamine users without children. The ANCD report indicated that perhaps the most significant outcome for children raised by parents using illicit drugs was the increased prevalence of child maltreatment, both child abuse and neglect. However, it acknowledged that poor child outcomes cannot be directly attributed to parental illicit drug use given the variety of other adverse conditions commonly encountered, such as socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g., unemployment, poverty, transient lifestyle), poor mental health (e.g., co-morbid psychopathology) and social isolation (e.g., absence of social supports). Manufacture In addition to parental use of methamphetamine limiting the ability to adequately care for and supervise children, manufacture of ATS in or near the home creates a high-risk, unhealthy and unsafe environment (Gutchewsky, 2003). Manufacture of ATS can involve a relatively simple chemical process that uses highly flammable, very toxic and corrosive chemicals (Caldicott et al., 2005). Several groups of people are therefore placed at risk in relation to manufacturing, including other adults, children, police, forensic scientists and emergency workers. Special consideration must also be given to environmental decontamination of ATS clandestine laboratory sites and to the protection of exposed populations during this process. Disposal of chemical waste products from ATS production, such as phosphorous-based solvents, can create pollution, and human and environmental risk (Irvine & Chin, 1991).
Page 1:
National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant
Page 4 and 5:
ii Acknowledgments This research wo
Page 6 and 7:
iv Table of contents Acknowledgemen
Page 8 and 9:
vi List of tables Table 1.1: Amphet
Page 10 and 11:
viii
Page 12 and 13: 2 The NDS framework and the Law Enf
Page 14 and 15: 4 Table 1.1: Amphetamine-type stimu
Page 16 and 17: 6 particularly on the Pacific Coast
Page 18 and 19: 8 Figure 1.1: MDMA (ecstasy) tablet
Page 20 and 21: 10 a 10-year period. While some of
Page 22 and 23: 12 Figure 1.4: Forms of methampheta
Page 24 and 25: 14 Figure 1.5: Median purity of met
Page 26 and 27: 16 As noted, the route of administr
Page 28 and 29: 18 Chapter 2: Setting the Context T
Page 30 and 31: 20 Figure 2.2: Prevalence of ecstas
Page 32 and 33: 22 19 years (Dunn et al., 2007). Th
Page 34 and 35: 24 The use of MDMA among police det
Page 36 and 37: 26 this survey is conducted with th
Page 38 and 39: 28 models might be useful. On the o
Page 40 and 41: 30 the questionnaire in February 20
Page 42 and 43: 32 2.5 Summary According to the lat
Page 44 and 45: 34 anxiety, agitation, tremor, teet
Page 46 and 47: 36 may be stronger than the link wi
Page 48 and 49: 38 Srisurapanot and colleagues (200
Page 50 and 51: 40 Psychiatric problems appear to o
Page 52 and 53: 42 In 2005, there was a total of 68
Page 54 and 55: 44 The most recent EDRS survey foun
Page 56 and 57: 46 same reasons they use the drugs
Page 58 and 59: 48 Shoptaw and Reback (2007) review
Page 60 and 61: 50 It has also been speculated that
Page 64 and 65: 54 The Minnesota Department of Heal
Page 66 and 67: 56 Chapter 4: Prevention and Harm R
Page 68 and 69: 58 should cover the full range of d
Page 70 and 71: 60 specific drug (Spoth et al., 200
Page 72 and 73: 62 be applied regularly and systema
Page 74 and 75: 64 Strategies targeting vulnerable
Page 76 and 77: 66 Examples of particular periods t
Page 78 and 79: 68 At-risk workplaces There is incr
Page 80 and 81: 70 The consultation forum with Abor
Page 82 and 83: 72 young people was noted in the su
Page 84 and 85: 74 and/or others); mental health ef
Page 86 and 87: 76 of the fact that frequently peop
Page 88 and 89: 78 Sexual risk behaviour is a furth
Page 90 and 91: 80 • Cleaning up; • Transport o
Page 92 and 93: 82 Assessing the risks of illicitly
Page 94 and 95: 84 4.4 Challenges of applying preve
Page 96 and 97: 86 but a number of studies are now
Page 98 and 99: 88 The pack included a video, train
Page 100 and 101: 90 Chapter 5: Treatment and Service
Page 102 and 103: 92 to the occurrence of amphetamine
Page 104 and 105: 94 In relation to the need for spec
Page 106 and 107: 96 These studies replicate earlier
Page 108 and 109: 98 addressed not only the drug user
Page 110 and 111: 100 Research conducted in the subse
Page 112 and 113:
102 users, data that may be general
Page 114 and 115:
104 that limit brain exposure to me
Page 116 and 117:
106 only significant difference was
Page 118 and 119:
108 through the use of antipsychoti
Page 120 and 121:
110 to develop the capacity of the
Page 122 and 123:
112 It was also suggested that link
Page 124 and 125:
114 as new evidence emerges. New ps
Page 126 and 127:
116 border in 2000 (McKetin et al.,
Page 128 and 129:
118 Table 6.1: Number of clandestin
Page 130 and 131:
120 Table 6.2: Examples of domestic
Page 132 and 133:
122 Tasmania In 2004, strengthened
Page 134 and 135:
124 Recommendations from the consul
Page 136 and 137:
126 Although there are a number of
Page 138 and 139:
128 illegal drugs. When incarcerate
Page 140 and 141:
130 heroin) (Payne et al., 2007). I
Page 142 and 143:
132 Some examples of diversion prog
Page 144 and 145:
134 Other research has compared psy
Page 146 and 147:
136 Rehabilitation in Corrections T
Page 148 and 149:
138 Synthetic Drugs measure will im
Page 150 and 151:
140 • Stealing from motor vehicle
Page 152 and 153:
142 criminal offences There continu
Page 154 and 155:
144 • Increase international coll
Page 156 and 157:
146 • Ensuring offence and penalt
Page 158 and 159:
148 Law enforcement agencies are pl
Page 160 and 161:
150 Appendix 1 National consultatio
Page 162 and 163:
152 Appendix 2 Written submissions
Page 164 and 165:
154 Australian Institute of Health
Page 166 and 167:
156 Bowers, J. & Johnson, S. (2003)
Page 168 and 169:
158 Crits-Christoph, P., Siqueland,
Page 170 and 171:
160 Drug & Alcohol Services South A
Page 172 and 173:
162 Halkitis, P.N., Parsons, J.T.,
Page 174 and 175:
164 Hull, P., Rawstorne, P., Zablot
Page 176 and 177:
166 Leek, L., Seneque, D., & Ward,
Page 178 and 179:
168 McKetin, R., McLaren, J., Kelly
Page 180 and 181:
170 NSW Health (2006). Psychostimul
Page 182 and 183:
172 Ressler, K.J., & Nemeroff, C.B.
Page 184 and 185:
174 Small, W., Kerr, T., Charette,
Page 186 and 187:
176 United Nations Office for Drug
Page 188 and 189:
178
Page 190:
180
show all

National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?