Medicalising Prohibition : Harm reduction in Finnish and International Drug Policy

The increase in drug use and related harms in the late 1990s in Finland has come to be referred to as the second drug wave. In addition to using criminal justice as a basis of drug policy, new kinds of drug regulation were introduced. Some of the new regulation strategies were referred to as "harm reduction". The most widely known practices of harm reduction include needle and syringe exchange programmes for intravenous drug users and medicinal substitution and maintenance treatment programmes for opiate users. The purpose of the study is to examine the change of drug policy in Finland and particularly the political struggle surrounding harm reduction in the context of this change. The aim is, first, to analyse the content of harm reduction policy and the dynamics of its emergence and, second, to assess to what extent harm reduction undermines or threatens traditional drug policy. The concept of harm reduction is typically associated with a drug policy strategy that employs the public health approach and where the principal focus of regulation is on drug-related health harms and risks. On the other hand, harm reduction policy has also been given other interpretations, relating, in particular, to human rights and social equality. In Finland, harm reduction can also be seen to have its roots in criminal policy. The general conclusion of the study is that rather than posing a threat to a prohibitionist drug policy, harm reduction has come to form part of it. The implementation of harm reduction by setting up health counselling centres for drug users with the main focus on needle exchange and by extending substitution treatment has implied the creation of specialised services based on medical expertise and an increasing involvement of the medical profession in addressing drug problems. At the same time the criminal justice control of drug use has been intensified. Accordingly, harm reduction has not entailed a shift to a more liberal drug policy nor has it undermined the traditional policy with its emphasis on total drug prohibition. Instead, harm reduction in combination with a prohibitionist penal policy constitutes a new dual-track drug policy paradigm. The study draws on the constructionist tradition of research on social problems and movements, where the analysis centres on claims made about social problems, claim-makers, ways of making claims and related social mobilisation. The research material mainly consists of administrative documents and interviews with key stakeholders. The doctoral study consists of five original articles and a summary article. The first article gives an overview of the strained process of change of drug policy and policy trends around the turn of the millennium. The second article focuses on the concept of harm reduction and the international organisations and groupings involved in defining it. The third article describes the process that in 1996 97 led to the creation of the first Finnish national drug policy strategy by reconciling mutually contradictory views of addressing the drug problem, at the same as the way was paved for harm reduction measures. The fourth article seeks to explain the relatively rapid diffusion of needle exchange programmes after 1996. The fifth article assesses substitution treatment as a harm reduction measure from the viewpoint of the associations of opioid users and their family members.

Arrested Drunk Drivers : Trends, social background, recidivism and mortality

The aim of this study was to examine the trends, incidence and recidivism of drunken driving during a 20-year period (1988 - 2007) using the data on all suspected drunken driving in this period. Furthermore, the association between social background and drunken driving, and the mortality of drunk drivers were studied by using administrative register data provided by Statistics Finland. The study was completely register-based. In 1989 - 1991, every year 30,000 drivers were suspected of drunken driving, but the number fell to less than 20,000 by 1994, during the economic recession. The changes in the arrest incidence of the youngest age groups were especially pronounced, most of all in the age group of 18 - 19-year olds. Even though the incidence among youth decreased dramatically, their incidence rate was still twice that of the general population aged 15 - 84 years. Drunken driving was associated with a poor social background among youth and working-aged men and women. For example, a low level of education, unemployment, divorce, and parental factors in youth were associated with a higher risk of being arrested for drunken driving. While a low income was related to more drunken driving among working-aged people, the effect among young persons was the opposite. Every third drunk driver got rearrested during a 15-year period, whereas the estimated rearrest rate was 44%. Findings of drugs only or in combination with alcohol increased the risk of rearrest. The highest rearrest rates were seen among drivers who were under the influence of amphetamines or cannabis. Also male gender, young age, high blood alcohol concentration, and arrest during weekdays and in the daytime predicted rearrest. When compared to the general population, arrested drunk drivers had significant excess mortality. The greatest relative differences were seen in alcohol-related causes of death (including alcohol diseases and alcohol poisoning), accidents, suicides and violence. Also mortality due to other than alcohol-related diseases was elevated among drunk drivers. Drunken driving was associated with multiple factors linked to traffic safety, health and social problems. Social marginalization may expose a person to harmful use of alcohol and drunken driving, and the associations are seen already among the youth. Recidivism is common among drunk drivers, and driving under the influence of illicit and/or medicinal drugs is likely to indicate worse substance abuse problems, judging from the high rearrest rates. High alcohol-related mortality in this population shows that drunken driving is clearly an indicator of alcohol abuse. More effective measures of preventing alcohol-related harms are needed, than merely preventing convicted drunk drivers from driving again.