Search

Introduction. This paper reports the results of the 1995, 1998, 2001 and 2004 Australian and US household surveys, with emphasis on changes since 2001. Design and Methods. The US survey data were recalculated to match age groups in the Australian data. Statistically significant changes are reported. Differences in prevalence of use by gender within age group were tested for significance. Results. The past-year use of 'any illicit drug', cannabis, cocaine, tranquillisers and injecting drugs decreased between 2001 and 2004 in Australia, but remained stable for all these drugs except ecstasy between 2002 and 2004 in the United States. The use of hallucinogens decreased in both countries. Alcohol and use of many illicit drugs by teenage girls in both countries increased to rates similar to or higher than boys, and teens in both countries reported binge and heavy drinking in the past month. Australians in their 20s had the highest rates of use, but in the United States, past-year use of many drugs was highest among teenagers. Discussion. More treatment services are needed, particularly for people dependent upon non-opiate drugs. The changes in acceptability of use of different drugs and their perceived availability are related to changes in prevalence rates. Even with the similarities in levels of use, there are differences in patterns of use and preferences for certain drugs in each country, and geographic proximity to drug sources is a factor. [Maxwell JC. Are we becoming more alike? Comparison of substance use in Australia and the United States as seen in the 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004 national household surveys. Drug Alcohol Rev 2008;27:473-481] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper updates an earlier article by comparing the results of the 1998 and 2001 household surveys. The Australian survey showed a significant decrease in past-year use of "any illicit drug". The methodological changes in the US surveys prevented comparison for these years, but there were increases in use of any illicit drug between 2000 and 2001. Patterns of use of marijuana, stimulants, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin and needles are shown by age group and gender. Use by teenage girls in both countries has risen to the point that they are now using alcohol and some drugs at rates similar to boys. Over 20% of teens in both countries reported binge drinking in the past month. While Australians in their 20s had the highest rates of lifetime and past-year use, in the United States, depending on the drug, lifetime use was highest among people in their 30s or 40s, with past-year use highest among teenagers. Drug treatment services are needed not only for young people, but also for aging users. The changes in perceptions of risk from use of various drugs and availability of these drugs are related to changes in prevalence rates. [Maxwell JC. Update: comparison of drug use in Australia and the United States as seen in the 2001 National Household Surveys. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003;22:347 - 357] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

‘It is much easier to extirpate than to amend Mankind.’ Sir William Blackstone Five stages in the history of regulation are derived from the literature as a starting framework for this essay. These stages are outlined in the first section. This five-stage model is then confronted and revised in light of the neglected case of the Australian penal colony. It is juxtaposed throughout the paper with the history of the regulation of crime in the US. Australian convict society is found to be brutal yet forgiving. We conclude that surprisingly high levels of procedural justice and reintegration in Australian convict society drive down crime rates at a remarkable rate in the nineteenth century. In contrast American slave society is characterised by procedural injustice, exclusion and stigmatisation, which delivers high crime rates. Following Heimer and Staffen's theory, reintegration and procedural fairness are found to arise in conditions where the powerful are dependent on the deviant. Acute labour shortage is the basis of a reintegrative assignment system for Australian convicts to work in the free community. While convicts change Australia in very Australian ways, we find that many of these developments are not uniquely Australian and so a revision of the five-phase model is proposed. The revision also implies that Foucault's distinction between governing the body versus governing the soul (corporal/capital punishment versus the penitentiary) is less central than exclusion versus inclusion (banishment versus restorative justice) to understanding all stages of the history of regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]