Illicit Drug Normalisation
Notes from recreational drug use: the normalisation thesis examined Different arguments for and against the normalisation.
Most research agrees that illegal and illicit drug use is increasing steadily throughout the United Kingdom as well as most other ‘western countries' (Barnard et al, 1996; Mayhew el al, 1993). However, there seems to be a lack of recent research into illicit drug use amongst students in British Universities.
One of the main issues which needs to be addressed first is what normalization actually is. The term ‘normalization' is an ambiguous word which is hard to define. What one person may seem as behaviour which has become normal, others may not. Shildrick, (2002:40), states that “normalization refers to a range of factors relating to youthful drug use and there is little agreement as to what the concept actually means” as a consequence, debates around normalization remain somewhat ‘polarized' (Shildrick, 2002:40). This factor needs to be taken into consideration when discussing any concepts in relation to the normalization of illicit drug use within Britain.
Shiner and Newburn argue that drugs are not becoming normalized within society. They strengthen this argument by highlighting the fact that celebrities who talk openly about their drug use are condemned. For example, they discuss Brian Harvey formerly of East 17. Harvey decided to “speak openly about his drug use” (Shiner and Newburn, 1999:140), and stated that Ecstasy was a “safe drug” (Shiner and Newburn, 1999:140). There was an immediate ‘backlash' to these comments and Harvey was “criticised by the Prime Minister” and “condemned by much of the media.”(Shiner and Newburn, 1999:140). This shows that talking about drug use on radio is not thought of as normal within our society and is actually severely frowned upon. Using famous examples as Shiner and Newburn have, can help to give a piece of research more credibility and helps strengthen their argument that drug use is not becoming normalized.
The concept of normalization is most closely associated with Parker and colleagues, and they said that “for many young people drug taking has become the norm”, and state that “over the next few years and certainly in urban areas, non drug trying adults will be a minority group” (Parker et al, 1995, p.26). These statements seem exaggerated and there is little evidence to back up these points. For example, the 2002/2003 British Crime Survey states that of all 16-59 year olds, “12 per cent had used an illicit drug and 3 per cent had used a class A drug in the last year” (Condon and Smith,(2003:1)). These figures are on the low side and do not back up Parker and colleagues' claims that non drug trying adults will be the minority group. This is also backed up by research carried out by Sharp et al, (2001), who found that crack, cocaine and heroin are only used by around one per cent of the population. Parker et al may claim that illicit drug use is becoming normalized, however they actually admit that they “cannot make robust estimates of the scale of regular drug use” (Parker et al, 2002:947). This therefore means that they could be basing their argument on unrealistic estimates of drug use within Britain. It is hard to get clear estimates about how many people in Britain are actually using drugs. This is due to the fact that the whole population cannot be questioned on their use of drugs as this would be costly. There would also be other confounding factors such as people may not return the survey, and people may also lie on the survey.
Also, Parker et al seem to contradict themselves. In one sentence they are stating that “over the next few years and certainly in urban areas, non drug trying adults will be a minority group” (Parker et al, 1995, p.26), and then in a different sentence they are saying ‘we are not even considering the possibility that most young Britons will become illicit drug users' (Parker et al, 1998:153). If young Britons are trying drugs then surely there is the possibility that they will become illicit drug users. Also, if young people are trying drugs some people may already define them as users, because they have actually already used a drug.
The argument which is put forward by Parker et al can also be criticised due to the fact that some of the wording they use to back up their argument is very vague. For example, the words ‘a majority', and ‘almost all' (Parker et al, (1998:153) are used when discussing levels of drug use. If these researchers had clear figures which backed up their research I am sure they would include these rather than these more indistinct words. Also, compared to Shiner and Newburn's work which opposes the normalization thesis, the work carried out by Parker and colleagues seems to be backed up by very few other theorists, and they include few studies which support their work.
If cannabis was not becoming normalised within our society, then the public would surely want tough action taken against people who use and deal with cannabis.
A survey was carried out by Pearson and Shiner (2002), which aimed to find out what 1645 people thought the police's main priorities should be. Less than 0.5 per cent of people questioned thought cannabis users should be one of the top three policing priorities, and only 8 per cent thought that cannabis dealers should be one of the top three priorities. This shows how low people view the seriousness of cannabis as a risk to society and other things such as sexual assaults on women have a far higher priority. Again this provides evidence that cannabis use is becoming normalised, and is not seen as a high priority within society. In the same survey, 66 per cent of people surveyed put drug dealers who sell heroin in their top three priorities which the police should be dealing with. Asking people about how they would prioritise the police's main priorities is a good way to assess which drugs the public see as most problematic. It is also a good measure of the public's conception of how bad the problem of illicit drugs is compared to other issues such as rape.
Another study carried out by Wibberly and Price (2000) supports the argument that cannabis is becoming normalized, whereas other drugs are not. When participants were asked about their feelings towards cannabis, it was referred to as ‘acceptable' to some degree, “possibly as a result of familiarization with it” (Wibberly and Price (2000:157). Heroin was referred to as a drug ‘not to be touched' (Wibberly and Price (2000:157). Wibberly and Price's research can be praised due to the fact that purposive sampling was used in order to ensure diversity in terms of the schools involved in their research. They made sure that the pupils they questioned had different catchment areas and different recruitment policies. This is a good method to use when assessing drug use amongst young people, because if you use a sample from one certain area or background your results cannot be generalised as easily.
A good way to assess whether an illicit substance is becoming normalized is to compare their perceived harmfulness to licit substances such as tobacco and alcohol. Pearson and Shiner (2002) have evidence which suggests that cannabis is viewed as less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. In a survey of 1645 people, tobacco and alcohol, which are both legalised, are rated as more harmful than cannabis, with 36 per cent stating tobacco, 17 per cent stating alcohol and only 10 percent stating cannabis as very harmful. This is a good piece of research to support the argument that cannabis is becoming normalized due to the fact that the perceived harmfulness is actually less than substances which are already licit. However, it could be argued that the people who were surveyed do not actually know the facts about the health risks of these substances. If they were told proven facts about the harmfulness of these substances before they took the survey then their responses may have been different.
Another factor to be considered when analysing the statistics on drug use is that both extent and frequency are easily exaggerated through over reliance on lifetime measures. If lifetime usage is focused on, then drug taking may seen quite widespread when it actually is not. For example, when looking at the study by Roy et al (2005), lifetime use of ecstasy is 8.3 per cent out of a sample of 712. This may seem quite high, however, if you look at weekly usage then only 1.4 per cent of people state using it. This therefore shows how lifetime measures can be deceiving. This is due to the fact that people may only use a drug once in their lifetime, but this still shows up on some statistics which use lifetime measures as a way of arguing that drug taking is becoming normalized. If someone has only used a drug once then they were most probably just experimenting and do not see frequent drug using as normal behaviour. Also, lifetime measures fail to distinguish between current and ex users. This shows us that the way data is collated and collected can have an effect upon how the findings of a survey can be perceived.
Another way in which the normalization of illicit drug use can be questioned is by looking at the attitudes of young people about drug taking. Research was carried out in Newham, London, by Shiner and Newburn (1997) into the meaning that drug use has for young people. They found that some of the people who used drugs tended to use neutralization techniques to try and justify themselves using it. For example, one person questioned stated that if he didn't take drugs in front of his friends then people called him a “chicken” (Shiner and Newburn (1997:524)). Also, some of the people in the study who had used drugs themselves did not see it as acceptable for their siblings to use drugs. For example, one person who had taken drugs stated that they would tell their siblings ‘don't do it because it's not good' (Shiner and Newburn (1997:524). I feel that a good way of assessing whether drug use is becoming normalized is to ask drug users about how they would react if their siblings started taking drugs, as Shiner and Newburn have done. This gives more of an idea about whether drugs are becoming normalized. If drug users see it as normal and acceptable for their siblings to use drugs then this will add strength to the normalization thesis. However, Shiner and Newburn have found that drug users actually condemn their siblings using drugs, which supports the argument that drug use is not becoming normalized.
In conclusion, one of the main things that has to be considered when analysing research done on illicit drug use is how reliable the research actually is. It is hard to try and gain precise data on how many people have actually taken illicit drugs. This is due to the fact that “young people may either under estimate or over estimate their consumption” (Shildrick, 2002:37). This means that the data has to be looked at quite sceptically, and under or overestimation of drug consumption has to be taken into account.
Also, where the studies actually take place can have an effect on what results are found. The studies carried out by Parker et al (2002) and Roy et al (2005) are both studies which aim to find out if drug use is increasing or decreasing in our society. They were both carried out in Manchester, which is well known for having lots of nightclubs and a good nightlife, this could affect the results of these studies. They might have found the drug use to be higher than if the studies were carried out in a more rural area. This could therefore mean that their results should not be generalised to the rest of the population. I argue that it would be better for research to be done in both rural and urban areas across the country as this would give a wider view on drug use throughout the country.
Sample sizes may also affect the results of surveys carried out. For example, Leeming et al (2002) found that only 7.6 per cent of people questioned had a lifetime usage of cannabis. However, only 210 participants took part in the survey, which is not many people. This figure can be compared to the 2001/2002 British Crime Survey (Condon and Smith, 2003), which surveyed 36,479 people. This survey found that 11 per cent of 16-59 year olds had used cannabis in the last year alone. This therefore shows that the more people questioned the more reliable the results are. If a study does not have many participants then the results will be less reliable and less generalizable. This could therefore mean that studies with not many participants, such as Leemings, should not have a big influence on the debate over whether drugs are becoming normalized.
Arguments for the normalisation thesis
The normalisation thesis has been suggested by many researchers (e.g. Coffield and Gofton, 1994; Hirst and McCamley-Finney 1994; Measham et al 1994) but was outlined in its most straightforward form by Parker et al (1995:26) when they claimed that for “many young people taking drugs has become the norm”.
Indicators of drug use levels: official stats and social surveys. Three sets of official statistics which enable a picture of the prevalence of drug use to be built up. These are the number of drug users known to official agencies, such as treatment agencies. The number of drug related offences processed by the police and criminal justice system. The amounts of controlled drugs seized by customs and the police can also be an indicator on the numbers of drugs within the country (Parker at al 1995). However these methods of collecting data on the drugs within the United Kingdom are not very useful when trying to ascertain whether the illicit drug use is becoming normalised within British universities.
As Parker et al (1995) note, no official record is kept of drug related incidents reported to the police. Instead it is the numbers of cautions and convictions secured under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1974 which are published. Parker et al claim that the figures only describe the very tip of the drugs possession and drugs supply populations. However, Aldridge et al (1996) state that several important trends are currently being set. These include the fact that the number of young people found guilty of drugs offences has been rising steadily for several years, and the largest single group found in these statistics is 17 to 20 year olds. Also, the types of drugs being ‘misused' are changing. Although cannabis dominates the drug scene, ‘dance drugs' are becoming increasingly popular. In 1992, ecstasy (MDMA) related offences increased by 171 per cent and amphetamines by 60 per cent on the previous year.
Drugs seizures by police and customs are notoriously difficult to interpret. Figures can be distorted by target enforcements, ‘lucky' strikes, and by the fact that more illegal drugs are being manufactured within the country than being smuggled in (Parker et al, 1995).
One of the best methods of estimating the prevalence of drug use in youthful populations, is the self report sample survey (Parker et al, 1995)
Issues and trends
Aldridge et al (1996) have identified several issues and trends from the array of national and local surveys. For example, they note that the prevalence of illicit drug use for young people (15-20 years) varies between 10 per cent and 35 per cent in national samples, and between 5 per cent and 50 per cent in local samples. They also state that the most popular drug is cannabis, which has been used by about a quarter of the young adult population, with rates around 40 to 50 percent in some urban environments. Since the 1980s, there has been significant growth in reported use of dance drugs, namely LSD , amphetamines and MDMA.
National surveys
There have been nearly 30 national surveys of drug use since the mid 1970s (Aldridge et al, 1996). Most have used the self report questionnaire and age targeted populations (e.g. MORI, 1992; Gallup Wranger, 1992). Government led studies, however, have tended to utilise the household survey approach (e.g. Mott and Mirlees Black 1993).
Local surveys
According to the ISDD (1994), the majority of surveys are local studies intended to service the information needs of a health authority or other local agency. Iy id pointed out that it would not be surprising if areas with the most reason to be concerned about drug use were also the ones most surveyed. This is highlighted by the fact that many studies are carried out in Liverpool, Mnahcester, London, Glasgow and Edunburgh. Snowballing technique - reliable?
Some commentators have argued that drug use by young people becoming so common that it is no longer regarded as a ‘deviant' activity by them. Parker et al (1995) have called this the process of normalisation. This normalisation thesis has been supported by some commentators (e.g. Measham et al, 1998; Hirst and McCamley-Finney, 1994) but challenged by others (e.g. Shiner and Newburn, 1997; Dowds abd Redfern 1994)
Recreational drug use as described by Parker et al (1998), refers only to certain drugs, primarily cannabis, but also dance drugs such as amphetamines, ecstasy and LSD. Shiner and Newburn (1997) argue that the extent to which these drugs are used has been overstated. They also argue that it is not the behaviour of the participants themselves which make an activity normalised, the behaviour has to be accepted by the relevant audience, in this case, young people as a whole, for the activity to be categorised as ‘normal'.
Parker et al (1998) have highlighted six key features if the normalisation thesis, these are drug availability, drug trying, being drug wise, future intentions, and cultural accommodation.
Drug availability
Drug trying
Parker at al (1998) suggest that normative drug trying has been further demonstrated by the closing of gender and social differences. Traditionally far more young people, men rather than women, would experiment with drugs. During the 1990s this gender difference has closed rapidly and many studies actually record no difference in the use of drugs between different genders. Similarly, coming from a middle class back ground no longer predicts that the young person will abstain from drug use. As the vast majority *inc figs* of university students come from middle class back grounds, this may therefore indicate that drug use is becoming more prevalent amongst them.
Drug use
Many studies have shown that around a quarter of all young people regularly use illicit drugs (e.g. Roberts et al 1995). Parker et al (1998) suggest that this is a robust measure of normalisation.
Being drug wise
Parker and colleagues have stated that their research shows that nearly all young people are drugwise. They claim that non users have considerable knowledge of the recreational drugs scene because they cannot escape encounters with drugs and drug users. Young people draw distinctions between gross misuse of ‘hard drugs' and ‘sensible' recreational use of cannabis and to some extent amphetamines, LSD and ecstasy. According to Parker et al, this moral accommodation if others' drug use, based on a notion of freedom of choice, as long as it does not harm anyone else, is another essential dimension of the move towards normalisation.
Future intentions
Parker et al 1998 state that current trends show that recreational drug use amongst young people continues to escalate into young adulthood. Parker and colleagues work also suggest that some non- users and current ex users are likely to try or re-use particular drugs in the future. This open-mindedness about future use, often by young adults who went through their adolescence without taking illicit drugs, is a further dimension of Parker's normalisation theses.
Arguments against the normalisation thesis
Shiner and Newburn (1997) have been the main critics of the normalisation thesis. They argue that far more has been read into the situation than is warranted, and suggest that some distance has to be travelled before drug use can assume the status if a ‘normalised' activity.
In setting out their argument, Shiner and Newburn first examine what is meant by ‘normalisation'. They suggest that the contingent nature of ‘deviance' is reflected in the process of normalisation. Erikson (1964:11) states that “the critical variable in the study of social deviance is the social audience rather than the individual actor, since it is the audience which eventually determines whether or not any episode or behaviour or any class of episodes is labelled deviant” (quoted in Shiner and Newburn , 1997). Shiner and Newburn's argument against the normalisation thesis is twofold. Firstly, the use of drugs is not as widespread as suggested by other commentators, notably Parker et al, and certainly not as widespread enough to suggest normalisation. Secondly, that the use of drugs is not a form of behaviour which is accepted by the relevant audience.
It is claimed by Shiner and Newburn, that the rise of the dance/rave scene and its associated drug use has a special position within the normalisation thesis for those that support it. They go on to suggest that the popularity of theses dance drugs can easily be overstated, especially when estimating current or regular use.
Shiner and Newburn's argument against the normalisation thesis: they suggest that even though there is increasing levels of drug use amongst young people, both the extent and frequency are easily exaggerated through over reliance on lifetime measures. Secondly, they claim that when shorter time frame measures are used, strong evidence for the normalisation thesis is even more elusive. Shiner and Newburn also point out that convincing support for the normalisation thesis would not only require evidence that drug use is widespread, but that usage is perceived to be normal - discuss.
Attitudes towards drug use
Restrictive views
Folklore
Folklore according to Brunvanc (1983), is primarily an oral tradition which, made up or stories or legends, transmits accepted wisdoms, knowledge or models of behaviour. Whether true or false, these stories reflect some of the ‘hopes, fears and anxieties of our time'. Scare stories - shiner and newburn.
The Normalization of ‘Sensible' Recreational
Drug Use:
Further Evidence from the North West
England Longitudinal Study
Universities provide one of the few arenas for the easy capture of young adults and a clutch of studies of undergraduates (Makhoul et al., 1998; Webb et al., 1996) and medical students (Ashton and Kamali, 1995; Birch et al., 1999) has been generated. All these studies variously suggest that the majority of university students, up to 60 percent, have some drug experience, a figure which has doubled over the past 15 years. Cannabis dominates this involvement, with only 13 to 18 percent having ever used dance drugs. The application of personality and general health measurements and assessing views about drug use in some of these studies has led to the conclusion that drug experienced students are very little different from the ‘normal population of students' and that drug taking has ‘become part of the lifestyle of a significant and nondeviant proportion of students' (Makhoul et al., 1998).
That probably half of young Britons have breached the Misuse of Drugs Act in terms of possession and perhaps a quarter have acquired and distributed drugs in a way which makes them arrestable for ‘intent to supply' is a key measure of normalization.
Research problem
After reviewing the literature on the normalisation of recreational drug use amongst British university students, it is apparent that a number of issues and questions are still outstanding and unanswered.
References
Aldridge, J, Measham, F, and Parker, H (1996). Drugs Pathways in the 1990s: Adolescents' decision making about illicit drug use. London: Drugs prevention initiative, Home Office
Dowds, L, and Redfern, J (1994). Drug Education Amongst Teenagers: A 1992 British Crime Survey analysis. London: Home Office
Erikson, K T (1964). ‘Notes on the Sociology of Deviance', in H Becker (ed.) The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Free Press
Measham, F, Newcombe, R, and Parker H (1994). ‘The normalisation of recreational drug use amongst young people in North West England' British journal of Sociology. 45 (2). 287-312
Measham, F, Aldridge, J, and Parker, H (1998). ‘The Teenage Transition: From recreational drug use to the dance drug culture' Journal or Drug Issues. Special edition, 28, 1, 9-22
MORI (1992) .Today's young adults look at diet, alcohol, smoking, drugs and sexual behaviour. London: Education Health Authority
Parker, H, Measham, F, and Aldridge, J (1995). Drugs Futures: Changing patterns of adolescent recreational drug use among English youth. London:ISDD
Parker, H, Measham, F, and Aldridge, J (1998). Illegal leisure: The normalisation of adolescent recreational drug use. London: Routledge.
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
