Heroin Addicts
We are addicts and we behave recklessly without regard for the consequences of our actions. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, we destroy the ones we love as surely as we destroy ourselves. (Brown, 2004, p.174)
Stereotypes have been defined in different ways by various researchers, and can have many different connotations between individuals. For the purposes of this essay it will be defined as “a belief about a group of individuals” (Kanahara, 2006). This essay will discuss stereotypes surrounding heroin addicts in particular, and hypothesize about possible reasons for their origin and why they are maintained. It will also propose methods for changing these stereotypes and provide a concept map of the variables involved.
Many people in Australia hold prejudices against heroin addicts. Some of these have existed since at least the 1950’s, and are solidly engrained in the Australian psyche. Some view heroin addicts as “untrustworthy, mistrustful, dangerous, and a menace to the community” (Coomber, & Maher, 2006) while others associate them with habitual criminality. There has been a debate surrounding whether heroin addicts “are indiscriminate, random and even impulsive in carrying out their criminal activities, or by contrast, if they are skilled criminal entrepreneurs.” (Faupel, 1987, p.115) In addition to this association with crime, heroin addicted females are often seen as more likely to be prostitutes, and members of both genders may be seen as more likely to be HIV positive. Even when heroin addicts are not being associated with criminal behaviour, they are seen as detriments to society. It is also not uncommon to hear heroin addicts stereotyped as ‘junkies,’ ‘smackies’ and unable to control their addiction. Changing stigmatisms such as the one held by many Australians about heroin addicts would be a difficult task.
Interestingly, Australia was not originally opposed to heroin use, and during the 1930’s it is estimated that Australia was using 7.5% of the worlds legal heroin supply, approximately 50 times more per capita than the United States (Rowe, 2005). However, by the 1950’s, in part due to pressure from the United Nations, and in particular the United States, Australia altered its policy on narcotics. Political commentators advocated a conforming policy of prohibition, using arguments such as;
This sinful, wicked chemical can contribute to wholesale national rot and demoralisation ... Heroin addicts exhibit pronounced psychopathic tendencies ... most of them are weak, unhappy persons; and many are homosexual (Victorian Parliamentary Debates 1953, 1986, as cited in Rowe, 2005).
Over time, at least in the intellectual community, heroin addicts have been seen less as psychopaths and more as victims. However, amongst the general population the view that drug addicts are criminally minded seems to have been maintained.
The reasons that prejudice surrounding heroin addicts presently exist and are maintained are complex and varied. From an evolutionary perspective there are many reasons that humans place people into groups, leading some researchers to conclude that “prejudice is natural” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.411). There are two parts to this statement. Firstly perceiving people in other groups as inferior serves to benefit the members of select groups by increasing the likeliness of reciprocal altruism, and by boosting self esteem (Deckers, 2005). Secondly most humans operate on systems of heuristics, because algorithms take up time and energy, and are inefficient. However, perhaps the most influential factor in maintaining prejudice and consequent discrimination against heroin addicts is personal experience. In one longitudinal study Deschenes, Anglin, and Speckart (1991) followed 279 male heroin addicts for a period of two years. During that time they reported over 250,000 property crimes, 4251 arrests, and cost the state of California an estimated $85 million. It would be pointless to estimate how many people were affected both directly and indirectly from this sample group. However, it would appear safe to assume that some of those that were robbed formed a stigma against heroin addicts. Parallel with these findings is research suggesting that when interviewed, heroin addicts frequently admit that they steal to obtain money for heroin, and rarely self report that they lead a life free of crime (Hammersley, & Morrison, 1987) Empirical research has also supported the stereotype that heroin addicts are more likely to be HIV positive. For example a 10 year longitudinal study on heroin addicts in Spain found that 30% of the participants had died during the duration of the study, 51% of which were AIDS related. (Sanchez-Carbonell, & Seus, 2000)
The stereotypes surrounding heroin addicts would be difficult to change, particularly as many stem from personal negative experience. For example if a person saw a heroin addict overdosing, then they might develop a classically conditioned response between heroin addicts (unconditioned stimulus) and feeling bad because they observed someone dying (unconditioned response). Also media portrayals in recent years have tended to be negative, associating the deaths of well respected artists, particularly in the music industry, to their heroin addiction. A few recent examples could include the lead singer from Sublime, Bradley Nowell being found dead in his hotel from a heroin overdose, and Kurt Cobain’s apparently heroin related suicide[1]. However, if more artists’ heroin use was made public then people could form positive associations. Also, informing people about the principal of “conscious override” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.425), might allow them to see a heroin addict while walking down a dark alley at night and realize that their automatic response to run displays a prejudice, which is contrary to the idea of equality. Journal articles such as the ones discussed earlier would also have to be downplayed or censored, as these can lead to the disturbing thought that some “stereotypes are accurate in both content and degree.” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.420)
In conclusion, this essay was not about the plight of the heroin addicted individuals suffering social stigma in Australia. It was about the overly politically correct culture that seems to be inhibiting the fundamental principal of psychological science. The focus of psychology should be understanding the human psyche, and denying parts of it that are now considered unacceptable or unpleasant interferes with this process. Quotes from an otherwise well written text book (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008) do more than illustrate this point; “…reluctantly come to the conclusion that prejudice is natural” (p.441), and “Such generalizations appeal to the lazy mind…” (p.418). Simply put there is no such thing as a “nonprejudiced” person; all human interaction works on assumptions. No matter how many times you break down barriers new ones will form. Presently it is unacceptable to openly divide people according to race, so people have started dividing by weight. Break that barrier and people will be divided by where they live, by their religion, whether they speak the same language, their intelligence, their political views and what university they attend. Less controversially, people will give preferential treatment to members of their family, therefore having a relative prejudice against all those not in their family. There will always be division between people, by definition all people cannot be in the ‘us’ category. Also there will always be competition for resources, whether is for the most attractive mate or globally dwindling oil supplies, which will increase hostility between both groups and individuals. I am not putting forward the idea that prejudice is a good thing or that arbitrary discrimination is productive. I am simply pointing out that an over awareness of the dominant political culture inhibits scientific thinking, and attempting to rid the world of prejudice is a frivolous pursuit.
References
Baumeister, R.F. and Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. California, USA: Thompson Wadsworth
Brown, J. (2004). The Los Angeles Diaries: A Memoir. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Coomber, R., and Maher, L. (2006) Street-Level Drug Market Activity in Sydney’s Primary Heroin Markets: Organization, Adulteration Practises, Pricing, Marketing and Violence. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(3): 719-753.
Deckers, L. (2005). Motivation: Biological, Psychological, and Environmental (2nd Ed). Boston, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Deschenes, E., Anglin, M.D., and Speckart, G. (1991) Narcotics addiction: Related criminal careers, social and economic costs. Journal of Drug Issues, 21(2): 383-411.
Faupel, C. F. (1987). Heroin Use and Criminal Careers. Qualitative Sociology, 10(2): 115-132.
Hammersley, R. and Morrison, V. (1987). Effects of Polydrug Use on the Criminal Activities of Heroin-users. British Journal of Addiction, 82: 899-906
Kanahara, S. (2006) A Review of the Definitions of Stereotype and a Proposal for a Progressional Model. Individual Differences Research, 4(5): p306-321.
Rowe, J. (2005) From Deviant to Disenfranchised: The evolution of drug users in AJSI
Australian Journal of Social Issues; 40(1): 107-123.
[1] See http://www.justiceforkurt.com/ for details on his “suicide”
We are addicts and we behave recklessly without regard for the consequences of our actions. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, we destroy the ones we love as surely as we destroy ourselves. (Brown, 2004, p.174)
Stereotypes have been defined in different ways by various researchers, and can have many different connotations between individuals. For the purposes of this essay it will be defined as “a belief about a group of individuals” (Kanahara, 2006). This essay will discuss stereotypes surrounding heroin addicts in particular, and hypothesize about possible reasons for their origin and why they are maintained. It will also propose methods for changing these stereotypes and provide a concept map of the variables involved.
Many people in Australia hold prejudices against heroin addicts. Some of these have existed since at least the 1950’s, and are solidly engrained in the Australian psyche. Some view heroin addicts as “untrustworthy, mistrustful, dangerous, and a menace to the community” (Coomber, & Maher, 2006) while others associate them with habitual criminality. There has been a debate surrounding whether heroin addicts “are indiscriminate, random and even impulsive in carrying out their criminal activities, or by contrast, if they are skilled criminal entrepreneurs.” (Faupel, 1987, p.115) In addition to this association with crime, heroin addicted females are often seen as more likely to be prostitutes, and members of both genders may be seen as more likely to be HIV positive. Even when heroin addicts are not being associated with criminal behaviour, they are seen as detriments to society. It is also not uncommon to hear heroin addicts stereotyped as ‘junkies,’ ‘smackies’ and unable to control their addiction. Changing stigmatisms such as the one held by many Australians about heroin addicts would be a difficult task.
Interestingly, Australia was not originally opposed to heroin use, and during the 1930’s it is estimated that Australia was using 7.5% of the worlds legal heroin supply, approximately 50 times more per capita than the United States (Rowe, 2005). However, by the 1950’s, in part due to pressure from the United Nations, and in particular the United States, Australia altered its policy on narcotics. Political commentators advocated a conforming policy of prohibition, using arguments such as;
This sinful, wicked chemical can contribute to wholesale national rot and demoralisation ... Heroin addicts exhibit pronounced psychopathic tendencies ... most of them are weak, unhappy persons; and many are homosexual (Victorian Parliamentary Debates 1953, 1986, as cited in Rowe, 2005).
Over time, at least in the intellectual community, heroin addicts have been seen less as psychopaths and more as victims. However, amongst the general population the view that drug addicts are criminally minded seems to have been maintained.
The reasons that prejudice surrounding heroin addicts presently exist and are maintained are complex and varied. From an evolutionary perspective there are many reasons that humans place people into groups, leading some researchers to conclude that “prejudice is natural” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.411). There are two parts to this statement. Firstly perceiving people in other groups as inferior serves to benefit the members of select groups by increasing the likeliness of reciprocal altruism, and by boosting self esteem (Deckers, 2005). Secondly most humans operate on systems of heuristics, because algorithms take up time and energy, and are inefficient. However, perhaps the most influential factor in maintaining prejudice and consequent discrimination against heroin addicts is personal experience. In one longitudinal study Deschenes, Anglin, and Speckart (1991) followed 279 male heroin addicts for a period of two years. During that time they reported over 250,000 property crimes, 4251 arrests, and cost the state of California an estimated $85 million. It would be pointless to estimate how many people were affected both directly and indirectly from this sample group. However, it would appear safe to assume that some of those that were robbed formed a stigma against heroin addicts. Parallel with these findings is research suggesting that when interviewed, heroin addicts frequently admit that they steal to obtain money for heroin, and rarely self report that they lead a life free of crime (Hammersley, & Morrison, 1987) Empirical research has also supported the stereotype that heroin addicts are more likely to be HIV positive. For example a 10 year longitudinal study on heroin addicts in Spain found that 30% of the participants had died during the duration of the study, 51% of which were AIDS related. (Sanchez-Carbonell, & Seus, 2000)
The stereotypes surrounding heroin addicts would be difficult to change, particularly as many stem from personal negative experience. For example if a person saw a heroin addict overdosing, then they might develop a classically conditioned response between heroin addicts (unconditioned stimulus) and feeling bad because they observed someone dying (unconditioned response). Also media portrayals in recent years have tended to be negative, associating the deaths of well respected artists, particularly in the music industry, to their heroin addiction. A few recent examples could include the lead singer from Sublime, Bradley Nowell being found dead in his hotel from a heroin overdose, and Kurt Cobain’s apparently heroin related suicide[1]. However, if more artists’ heroin use was made public then people could form positive associations. Also, informing people about the principal of “conscious override” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.425), might allow them to see a heroin addict while walking down a dark alley at night and realize that their automatic response to run displays a prejudice, which is contrary to the idea of equality. Journal articles such as the ones discussed earlier would also have to be downplayed or censored, as these can lead to the disturbing thought that some “stereotypes are accurate in both content and degree.” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p.420)
In conclusion, this essay was not about the plight of the heroin addicted individuals suffering social stigma in Australia. It was about the overly politically correct culture that seems to be inhibiting the fundamental principal of psychological science. The focus of psychology should be understanding the human psyche, and denying parts of it that are now considered unacceptable or unpleasant interferes with this process. Quotes from an otherwise well written text book (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008) do more than illustrate this point; “…reluctantly come to the conclusion that prejudice is natural” (p.441), and “Such generalizations appeal to the lazy mind…” (p.418). Simply put there is no such thing as a “nonprejudiced” person; all human interaction works on assumptions. No matter how many times you break down barriers new ones will form. Presently it is unacceptable to openly divide people according to race, so people have started dividing by weight. Break that barrier and people will be divided by where they live, by their religion, whether they speak the same language, their intelligence, their political views and what university they attend. Less controversially, people will give preferential treatment to members of their family, therefore having a relative prejudice against all those not in their family. There will always be division between people, by definition all people cannot be in the ‘us’ category. Also there will always be competition for resources, whether is for the most attractive mate or globally dwindling oil supplies, which will increase hostility between both groups and individuals. I am not putting forward the idea that prejudice is a good thing or that arbitrary discrimination is productive. I am simply pointing out that an over awareness of the dominant political culture inhibits scientific thinking, and attempting to rid the world of prejudice is a frivolous pursuit.
References
Baumeister, R.F. and Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. California, USA: Thompson Wadsworth
Brown, J. (2004). The Los Angeles Diaries: A Memoir. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Coomber, R., and Maher, L. (2006) Street-Level Drug Market Activity in Sydney’s Primary Heroin Markets: Organization, Adulteration Practises, Pricing, Marketing and Violence. Journal of Drug Issues, 36(3): 719-753.
Deckers, L. (2005). Motivation: Biological, Psychological, and Environmental (2nd Ed). Boston, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Deschenes, E., Anglin, M.D., and Speckart, G. (1991) Narcotics addiction: Related criminal careers, social and economic costs. Journal of Drug Issues, 21(2): 383-411.
Faupel, C. F. (1987). Heroin Use and Criminal Careers. Qualitative Sociology, 10(2): 115-132.
Hammersley, R. and Morrison, V. (1987). Effects of Polydrug Use on the Criminal Activities of Heroin-users. British Journal of Addiction, 82: 899-906
Kanahara, S. (2006) A Review of the Definitions of Stereotype and a Proposal for a Progressional Model. Individual Differences Research, 4(5): p306-321.
Rowe, J. (2005) From Deviant to Disenfranchised: The evolution of drug users in AJSI
Australian Journal of Social Issues; 40(1): 107-123.
[1] See http://www.justiceforkurt.com/ for details on his “suicide”
