This article looks at the extent to which subcultural theories of deviance are still relevant to understanding recreational drug use, given the relatively widespread nature of drug use among today's youth. In order to determine this, the social and subcultural use of the recently popular drug 'ecstasy' (MDMA) is examined using the research methods of semi-structured interviewing and observation. The data suggest that ecstasy use is a manifestation of a broad social involvement in a subculture of drug use. It is argued that subcultural theories of deviance provide an important understanding of ecstasy use in today's society. A main conclusion drawn from the data is that the meaning of drug use has to be looked at in the context of the norms of behaviour and shared understandings of the drug-using subculture in which they are learnt.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is one of the major policy innovations of the early 21st century in Australia, representing a new way of delivering services to people with a disability and those who care for them. It has the potential to transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, giving them greater certainty and control over their lives. There is a higher incidence of disability in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population than in the Australian population more generally, so the NDIS is of particular relevance to Indigenous Australians. However, Indigenous Australians with a disability have a very distinct age, geographic and health profile, which differs from that of the equivalent non-Indigenous population. Furthermore, the conceptualisation of disability and care in many Indigenous communities, particularly in remote areas, may differ markedly in comparison to more settled parts of the country, and there is the added complexity of a unique history of interaction with government. In considering these issues in detail, this Research Monograph provides a resource for policy makers, researchers and service providers who are working in this important policy area. Its major conclusion is that the NDIS, if it is to be an effective policy for Indigenous Australians, needs to take into account their very particular needs and aspirations.
IntroductionOfficial Australian estimates of socioeconomic inequalities in cause-specific mortality have been based on area-level socioeconomic measures. Using area-level measures is known to underestimate inequalities.
Objectives and ApproachUsing recently released census linked to mortality data, we estimate education-related inequalities in cause-specific mortality for Australia. We used 2016 Australian Census and Death Registration data (2016-17) linked via a Person Linkage Spine (linkage rates: 92% and 97%, respectively) from the Multi-Agency Data Integration Project (MADIP). Education, from the Census, was categorised as low (no secondary school graduation or other qualification), intermediate (secondary graduation with/without other non-tertiary qualifications) and high (tertiary qualification). Cause of death was coded according to the underlying cause of death using the ICD-10. We used negative binomial regression to estimate relative rates (RR) for cause-specific mortality at ages 25-84 years, in the 12-months following Census, comparing low vs high education, separately by sex and 20-year age group, adjusting for age.
Results80,317 deaths occurred among 13,856,202 people. For those aged 25-44 years, relative inequalities were large for causes related to injury and smaller for lesspreventable deaths (e.g. for men, suicide RR=5.6, 95%CI: 4.1-7.5 and brain cancer RR=1.3, 0.6-3.1). For those aged 45-64, inequalities were large for causes related to health behaviours and amenable to medical intervention, e.g. lung cancer (men RR= 6.4, 4.7-8.8) and ischaemic heart disease (women RR=5.0, 3.2-7.7), and were small for less preventable causes e.g. brain cancer (women RR=0.9, 0.6-1.3). Patterns among those aged 65-84years were similar to those aged 45-64 years.
Conclusion / ImplicationsIn Australia, inequalities in mortality are substantial. Our findings highlight the health burden from inequalities, opportunities for prevention and provide insights on targets to effectively reduce them.
