Harm reduction and law enforcement in Vietnam: influences on street policing
Harm reduction and law enforcement in Vietnam: influences on street policing
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1477-7517-9-27
复制
发表时间：
2012-07-09
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Morrow, Martha
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jardine, Melissa;Crofts, Nick;Morrow, Martha
背景和理由：越南的艾滋病毒流行从一开始就集中在注射毒品使用者中。越南制定了2006年《艾滋病毒/艾滋病法》，其中包括全面的减少危害措施，但这些措施没有得到普遍接受和充分执行。病房警察是决定注射吸毒者风险的一个主要因素，他们必须参与药物管制活动（特别是达到拘留中心的配额），这妨碍了对减少危害的支持。我们研究了病房级别的警察减少伤害在河内的影响，以了解如何更好地针对教育和结构性的changes.Methods：文件审查后，我们采访了来自政府，非政府组织，INNOVEL，多边机构和警察的线人，使用半结构化的指南。所涵盖的主题包括减少伤害和警察在禁毒执法中的作用的看法，减少伤害的培训和宣传police.Results：警察认为相互冲突的责任，但绝大多数认为他们的责任是执行禁毒法，确定和了解吸毒者，并选择那些强制拘留。减少伤害的培训是非常零碎的，病房警察不被视为重要的，它和减少伤害的理解是有限的，往往反映药物管制的优先事项。美沙酮的理由是预防犯罪和预防艾滋病毒一样多。病房警察的竞争压力造成了很多焦虑，绩效指标基于药物控制;诉诸拘留更安全地解决竞争压力。自由裁量权的重要性得到了广泛的认可，并在维护良好的社会秩序方面得到了广泛的运用。在执法部门的政策传播的方法是不一致的，几乎没有关于减少伤害的方案或方法的沟通，和一个毫无根据的假设，在高级培训自然会达到street.Discussion：病房警察没有系统地包括在减少伤害的宣传或培训战略，以支持或操作合法化的减少伤害的干预措施。街头警察的做法对减少伤害政策提出了挑战，这是完全可以理解的，因为他们面临着相互竞争的压力。为了在越南有效地减少危害，必须为街头警察解决控制艾滋病毒和控制毒品的法律之间的模糊和矛盾。
Background and rationale: The HIV epidemic in Vietnam has from its start been concentrated among injecting drug users. Vietnam instituted the 2006 HIV/AIDS Law which includes comprehensive harm reduction measures, but these are unevenly accepted and inadequately implemented. Ward police are a major determinant of risk for IDUs, required to participate in drug control practices (especially meeting quotas for detention centres) which impede support for harm reduction. We studied influences on ward level police regarding harm reduction in Hanoi to learn how to better target education and structural change.Methods: After document review, we interviewed informants from government, NGOs, INGOs, multilateral agencies, and police, using semi-structured guides. Topics covered included perceptions of harm reduction and the police role in drug law enforcement, and harm reduction training and advocacy among police.Results: Police perceive conflicting responsibilities, but overwhelmingly see their responsibility as enforcing drug laws, identifying and knowing drug users, and selecting those for compulsory detention. Harm reduction training was very patchy, ward police not being seen as important to it; and understanding of harm reduction was limited, tending to reflect drug control priorities. Justification for methadone was as much crime prevention as HIV prevention.Competing pressures on ward police create much anxiety, with performance measures based around drug control; recourse to detention resolves competing pressures more safely. There is much recognition of the importance of discretion, and much use of it to maintain good social order. Policy dissemination approaches within the law enforcement sector were inconsistent, with little communication about harm reduction programs or approaches, and an unfounded assumption that training at senior levels would naturally reach to the street.Discussion: Ward police have not been systematically included in harm reduction advocacy or training strategies to support or operationalise legalised harm reduction interventions. The practices of street police challenge harm reduction policies, entirely understandably given the competing pressures on them. For harm reduction to be effective in Vietnam, it is essential that the ambiguities and contradictions between laws to control HIV and to control drugs be resolved for the street-level police.