Destruction of family functions as consequence of drug abuse

S No

1

Content

Page

Abstract

1

Introduction

2

Method

4

Results

6

Discussion

7

Conclusion

9

Limitations/Recommendations

9

Reference

10

1

Abstract Adverse consequences for family functions were addressed in relation to drug abuse in the present study. It was assumed that families of drug abusers would significantly report more destruction of family economics ( i.e, doing no job, doing casual work, snatching money and selling things/family property without consent) destruction of affection and emotional security (i.e, quarrelling, threatening, using abusive language) and destruction of family prestige and status (i.e, stealing/cheating in home, involvement in crimes) than families of non-drug abusers. About one hundred and sixty (N=160) families including sixty (N=60) of drug abusers and sixty (N=60) of non-drug abusers were included in the study. Sixty (N-60) family members from each group further divided into two; thirty (N=30) wives and thirty (N=30) adult children. Semi-Structured Interview Form (SIF) was used as a measurement during interview in one to one setting. Statistical analysis of the results, Chi-Square test, confirmed the assumptions that families of drug abusers significantly reported more destruction of family functions in the area of family economics, affection and emotional security and family prestige and status than families of non-drug abusers. However, more destruction of family functions was found to be associated with heroin abusers.

Key words: Drug abuse, Family Functions, Destruction

2

Introduction Drug abuse is defined as a non-medical use of drugs or substances for the purpose of changing the user’s mood and perception regarding self and surrounding, producing sensations and experiences and enhancing the ability to function in social and sexual setting (Hofman, 1975, as cited in Farhat, 2003). Drug abuse or addiction is a chronic disorder resulting in psychological, physical, emotional and behavioral changes in the body of users (Ausubel, 1958). It also destroys family and communities besides users (Vetere & Henley, 2001). Drug abuse is a family disease causing harm for all family members of users (McCubbin, et al, 1996). Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India (2002) reported that drug abuse problems are affecting whole family and community. In Pakistan, the estimated annual prevalence of increase of drug addicts is 100,000 that seemed to be putting adverse socio-economical and psychological effects on 20 million family members (Muhammad, 2003).

Drug abuse is evident to be associated with family dysfunction (Rotunda & Doman, 2001). According to Ogburn (1930), family is responsible for producing economic sources, providing affection, emotional security and protection to all family members besides maintaining family prestige and status. But families of drug abusers come under the huge burden of financial constraints, when a major portion of earning is spent on drugs/alcohol (Cohen & Hart, 1998). Wives of drug abusers have to be dependent on their own parents.

Fewer resources for good food and education are available for their children (Dean, 1984).

Wives of drug abusers are overwhelmed by number of responsibilities. They lack of social support, monetary help and, moreover, are blamed for addictive behavior of their husbands (UNODC, 2002). Drug abuse destabilizes the family equilibrium pushing the real family problems back to curtain (Textor, 1987). Family members of substance abusers also avoid attending religious and cultural activities (DeMarch & Kumpfer, 1986).

Family cohesion, expressiveness, independence and intellectual orientation was found less in families of alcoholics. Moreover, the level of conflict was higher among these families when compared with non-alcoholic families (Moos & Billing, 1982). In case of alcohol abuse for a long time, personality deterioration, dishonesty and irresponsibility are vividly observed

3

(Cohen & Hart, 1998).

People using cannabis (marijuana) exhibited more aggressive

behaviors in comparison to non-users (Greenblatt, 1994). Crystal-meth also seemed to be causing erratic and violent behavior. Usage and manufacturing of crystal-meth in home impairs family and community relations (FNC, 2006).

Higher conflicts in terms of insult, yelling and serious arguments were also observed in families of substance abusers (Sher, 1991). Family members of substance abusers remain under the shadow of fear (Hogans, 1998). Drug abuse or addiction is a cause of domestic violence. About 87% of drug abusers admitted for treatment in de-addiction Centre run by Dehli Police (India) were violent towards their family members (Shankardass, 1998, in cited in UNODC, 2002). Drug abusers appeared to be physically abusing their wives during pregnancy (Rehman & Shahid, 2008). According to Sharp and associates (2001), drinking problem is related to 8 fold increase in partner abuse and 2 fold increase in death of female partner. Negative outcome of alcohol consumption was the violent behavior towards family and community as reported by Alcohol Health Watch (AHW, 2006).

A large body of empirical findings highlights the profound impact of drug abuse problems on the family functions. Families of drug abuser are deprived of sufficient economic resources, affection and emotional security. They also loose the family prestige and status in community due to drug abuse family member. Our study is an attempt to examine the family dysfunction due to drug abuse problems. For this purpose, following hypotheses have been postulated; 

Families of drug abusers will significantly report more destruction of family economics ( i.e, male family member as doing no job, doing casual work, snatching money and selling things/family property without family consent) than families of non-drug abusers.



Families of drug abusers will significantly report more destruction of affection and emotional security (i.e, male family member involves in quarrelling, threatening, using abusive language) than families of non-drug abusers.



Families of drug abusers will significantly report more destruction of family prestige and status (i.e, male family member involves in stealing/cheating in home, involvement in crimes) than families of non-drug abusers.

4

Method Sample: Total one hundred and twenty families (N= 120) including sixty (N = 60) families of male drug abusers and sixty (N =60) families of non-drug abusers were focused of present study. Among one hundred and twenty participants, thirty wives (N = 30) and thirty (N= 30) adult children (either son or daughter) of both groups were selected. Family members of drug abusers (convenient sample) were approached with the cooperation of administration of three different Treatment and Rehabilitation Centers (Apna Recovery Centre, Dawood Medical Centre and 12-Steps Recovery House) of Karachi, Pakistan. Comparative group was approached via referral sample technique. Inclusive criteria for the present sample were as follow;   

Families of patients who were abusing drugs (heroin, cannabis, crystal or alcohol) for at least last one year, were included in the study Families who did not report above mentioned addiction or any other chronic disease in male family member, were taken as a control group Only one member from each family was taken as a participant such as; wives, or adult children of drug abusers and non-drug abusers

Measurement: A Semi Structured Interview Form (SIF) was designed in native language (Urdu) for the present study. It comprised of three sections (A, B and C) and 20 items. Section A focused on demographic characteristics of the participants such as; name, age, duration of marriage (if applicable), socio-economic status, family strength, educational level, employment status, and residential area. Section B covered the information regarding drug abuse problems in male family member such as; type, duration of drug abuse problems and daily expenses on drugs. Section C of Interview Form focused on destruction of family functions in terms of destruction of family economics ( i.e, doing no job, doing casual work, snatching money and selling things/family property without family consent), destruction of affection and emotional security (i.e, quarrelling, threatening, using abusive language) and destruction of family prestige and status (i.e, stealing/cheating in home, involvement in crimes). The Section C comprised of closed ended questions having yes or no options.

Participants were required to choose any one option as their response to each item.

Research Procedure: At first step, permission was taken from the administration of the treatment and rehabilitation centers for conducting interview of family members of drug abusers. They were interviewed sitting in the treatment and rehabilitation centers. Whereas, family members of non-drug abusers were interviewed sitting in the place of their own choice. Before conducting interview, each participant was informed about the research purpose, its benefits and

5

confidentiality of their personal identification as well. After having consent, every participant was interviewed in one to one setting. All obtained information was recorded in Semi-Structured Interview Form. In last, they all were obliged for their kind help and cooperation.

Scoring and Statistical Analysis Obtained data was statistically analyzed by SPSS, Version 15.0. Test for Significance, Chi-square was computed to examine the difference between both groups on each variable. Frequency and percentages were obtained regarding the types of drug abuse in relation to destruction of family functions.

6

Results Table 1 Groups Destruction of Family

Families of

Family of

Functions

Drug Abuse

Non-drug abusers

1.Destruction of Family

Yes

No

Yes

No

ᵪ²

Economics



Not doing job

15 (25%)

45(75%)

03(5% )

57 (95%)

9.41**



Doing casual work

21(35%)

39(65%)

10(16.6% )

50(83.3%)

5.26*



Snatching money

13(21.6%)

47(78.3%)

0 (0% )

60(100%)

14.57**



Selling family property

17(28.3%)

43(71.6%)

06 (10%)

54(90%)

6.50*

Without family consent

2.Destruction of Affection/ Emotional Security 

Quarrelling

48(80%)

12 (20%)

30 (50 %)

30(50 %)

11.84**



Threatening

12(15%)

48(80%)

04(6.6%)

56(93.3%)

4.61*



Using abusive language

33(55%)

27(45%)

09(15%)

51(85%)

21.08**

3.Destruction of Family Prestige and Status Stealing/cheating in home

16

44(73.3%)

03(5%)

57(95%)

ᵪ² =10.54**

31(51.6%)

0 (0%)

60(100%)

ᵪ² =38.24**

(26.6%) Involved in crimes

29 (48.3%)

** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

7 Table: 2 Frequencies and Percentages of types of drug abusers in relation to the destruction of three main family functions Family Functions

1.Destruction of Family

Types of drug abusers Heroin Abusers

Cannabis Abusers

Crystal Abuser

Alcohol Abusers

(N = 15)

(N = 15)

(N = 15)

(N = 15)

F

%

F

%

F

%

F

%

13

86.6*

11

73.3

5

33.3

4

26.6

15

100*

14

93.3

9

60

11

73.3

12

80*

8

53.3

6

40

5

33.3

Economics 2.Destruction of Affection Emotional Security 3.Destruction of Family Prestige and Status *shows highest percentage of drug abusers involved in destruction of family functions

Discussion Drug abuse or addiction puts direct effects on user’s health. All kinds of drugs such as; alcohol, cocaine, heroin and narcotics bring harm to health (Lamptey, 2005). Along with physical health, user’s emotional, social and spiritual health also gets deteriorated.

Indulgence in drug abuse brings immediate disaster for family members in terms of economical, psychological and social problems. It profoundly affects the entire family (Stanton et al, 1982). The results of the present study also show that families of drug abusers have been more affected by drug abuse than families of non-drug abusers.

Results (Table: 1) depicted that families of drug abusers reported significantly more destruction of family economics in terms of not doing job (ᵪ² = 9.41 , p < 0.01 ), doing casual work (ᵪ² = 5.26 , p < 0.05 ), snatching money ( ᵪ² = 14.57, p < 0.01 ) and selling thing/family property without family consent (ᵪ² = 6.50 , p < 0.05 ). Exploring economic opportunities is the prime function of family. When an earning member of family indulges in drug abuse, he could not utilize his potentials to get access to economic resources available in the society. Family finances get reduced due to substance abuse problems (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992). Drug abuse makes a person psychologically dependent impairing his personal, occupational and social functioning. Workplace problems occur in terms of irregularity, abstinence and lateness at work. According the survey report of Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS, 2009), substance/drug abusers were found to be late from work and could utilize two third of their potential and capabilities on the given task. As has been described early, that drug abuse affects entire family, in adding to this, family members

8

of drug abusers, too, seemed not to be functioning effectively at work (DHHS, 2009).

Dependency on drugs deviate them from social responsibility they are expected to fulfill.

Their daily routine and life style also get changed due to involvement in drugs as presently found such as; not doing job at all or doing casual work, snatching money from family members and selling home appliance or property without taking family in confidence. Many times, drug abusers snatch money, steal household appliance, jewelry, and money to buy drugs. All these factors lead to the destruction of family economics resulting in financial constraints for rest of the family members.

Families of drug abusers also reported more destruction of affection/emotional security in terms of quarreling (ᵪ² = 11.84 , p < 0.05 ), threatening ( ᵪ² = 4.61 , p < 0.05 ) and using abusive language (ᵪ² = 21.08 , p < 0.01 ), as perpetuated by their addicted family member, than families of non-drug abusers. Being preoccupied with drugs results in more drug intake. It brings behavioral and mood changes to such extent that abusers could not properly function at home and workplace. They exhibit withdrawal symptoms and fail to make stable relationships (Mubbashar 1978). Instability in mood and craving for drugs diminishes the sense of right and wrong precipitating their involved in immoral acts such as cheating family and others, snatching money etc. Craving for drugs compel them to get drugs at any cost. In case of not having money, they threaten and quarrel with family members and use the abusive language, too. Another significant and possible reason might be the mental health consequences of drug abuse for the users. Drug abusers were found to be suffering from anxiety and mood disorders (Skinstad & Swain, 2001). Higher state and trait anger, expression of anger and less anger control was reported in drug abusers than nonabusers (De Moja & Spielberger, 1994). Psychological and mood changes might alter their behaviors which have been observed in form of quarrelling, threatening and using abusive language with family members in the current study.

In the present study, more destruction of family prestige and status was also reported by families of drug abusers than non-drug abuser in forms of cheating/stealing in home (ᵪ² = 10.54 , p <0.01) and involvement in crimes ( ᵪ² = 38.24 , p < 0.01). Substance/drug abuse contributes to crime (Chaiken & Chaiken, 1990). Approximately, 60% to 80%, of crimes found to be associated with drug abuse problems (Mumola, 1999). Conducting crimes outside (i.e, theft, cheating, pickpocketing, drug peddling) bring harm to the family prestige. On their arrest, families develop intense feelings of shame and humiliation at community level. Drug abuse is a highly stigmatized disease (Schomerus et al, 2011) because of being taken as a criminal and moral disease (Room, 2005). Involvement of addicted family member in immoral and criminal activities humiliates the entire family’s image in the society.

Consequently, each family member has to come across with social rejection.

Results (Table: 2) also highlights that heroin abusers were more involved in destruction of family functions. In fact, heroin abuse is more chronic disorder that severely and rapidly destroys multiple skills of users as compare to other type of drugs. Usually, they are unable to do job and pay other responsibilities. Heroin abusers are not perceived by their

9

wives as reliable enough to take care of their children and handle household matters (Pirasaee, 2005). They totally depend on others for the gratification of all of their needs including drugs. For these reasons, they sometimes, get involved in crimes for buying drugs.

As was previously found by Riaz, Shahzad, Ali and Abrar (2011) that approximately 34.3% heroin abusers conducted crimes and among them, 81.9% were arrested for different drug related offenses. Family relationships are also impaired due to the drug-related crimes and accidents (Coleman & Straus, 1983). In essence, drug abuse has detrimental effects on users, families and community as well.

Conclusion Overall results depicted that drug abuse impair the family functioning. Money for having food and education, love, security, respect and status in community are basic needs of each individual. If these needs are not gratified on time, long life problems occur which are hardly to be cured. Drug abuse is dangerous for not only users and for families as well.

Therefore, drug abuse must be discouraged at all levels in order to save the entire family.

Limitations/Recommendations The present study focused on the drug abusers and their families irrespective of their demographic differences such as; educational level, socio-economic status. Further investigations need to be done to examine the role of demographics of both drug abusers and their family members in determining the severity of destruction of family functions. Role of coping responses of family members in dealing drug abuse family member can also be thoroughly examined.

10

References

Alcohol Health Watch. (2006). Alcohol related violence in families and communities.

Retrieved from http://www.ahw.org.nz/resources/pdf/Violence_F_Sheet.pdf

Ausubel, D. P. (1958). Drug Addiction, New York, RaNDON House, Inc.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1992). Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Chaiken, J. M., & Chaiken, M. R. (1990). Drugs and predatory crime. Drug and Crime, 13, 203- 239. Abstract retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=125246

Cohen, R., & Hart, J. J. (1998). Student Psychiatry Today. Heinemann Professional Publishing Ltd, Oxford London.

Coleman,D.H.,& Strauss, M. A. (1983). Alcohol abuse and family violence. In E.Gottheil, K.

A. Duley, T.E. Skolada & H.M. Waxman (eds.) Alcohol Drug Abuse and Aggression.

Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Dean, B. (1984). The physiological, socio-economic and psychological factors of drug abuse.

Reflection on Drug Abuse, Pakistan Narcotic Control Board Islamabad, 32-27.

11

DeMarsh, J. P., & Kumpfer, K.L. (1986). Family-oriented interventions for the prevention of chemical dependency in children and adolescents. Prevention, 18, 117â&#x20AC;&#x201C;151

De Mooja, C. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (1997). Anger and drug addiction. Psychological Reports, 81(1): 152-4.

Farhat, U. (2003). Substance Addict Father and Psychological Problems of their Adult Children (Doctoral dissertation). Institute of Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi, Karachi Pakistan.

First Nations Centre. (2006). The Emerging Issue of Crystal Methamphetamine Use in First Nations Communities. National Aboriginal Health Organization, NAHO.

Hogan, D.M. (1997). The Social and Psychological Needs of Children of Drug Users: Report on Exploratory Study. The Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Research Centre, Dublin.

Lamptey, J. J. (2005). Socio-demographics characteristics of substance abusers admitted to a private specialist clinic. Ghana Medical Journal, 39: 2-7.

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M.A. (1996). Family Assessment: Resiliency, Coping and Adaptation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India and United Nations International Drug Control Program (2002). Women of drug abuse: The problem in India. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/documents/hivaids/publications/drugs_

12 _abuse_problem_web_pdf.

Moos, R. H. & Billings, A.G. (1982). Children of alcoholics during the recovery process: Alcoholic and matched control families. Addictive Behaviors, 7,155-163.

Mubbashar, M. H. (1978). Drug problems in the psycho-cultural contexts: A basis for policies and program planning. Public health series no, 73. Geneva:WHO

Muhammad, G. A. (2003). A sociological study of drug abuse in Pakistani society with special reference to heroin addicts, its courses and consequences (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Sociology, University of Karachi.

Mumola, C. (1999). Substance Abuse and Treatment State and Federal Prisoners.

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Ogburn, W. ( 1930). â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Changing Family, The Familyâ&#x20AC;?. In J. R. Eshleman (199). The Family (8 th ed.). USA: Allyn & Bacon

Pirasarae, H. Y. (2005). The effects of drug dependence on spousal relationship in Iran. Asian Journal of Counseling, 12 (1 & 2): 95-121.

Rehman, S. A, & Shahid, M. (2008). Over half of the pregnant wives are subjected to domestic violence in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Gender Studies. Retrieved from http/:wwwthiaindian.com

13

Riaz, Z., Shahzad, S., Ali, Z. A., & Abrar, N. (2011). Socio demographic characteristics of male heroin addicts. Pakistan Journal of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 21-32.

Room R. (2005). Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. Drug Alcohol Review, 24:143–55.

Rotunda, R. J., & Doman, K. (2001). Partner enabling of substance use disorders: Critical review and future directions. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 257–270.

Schomerus, G., Lucht, M., Holzinger, A., Matschinger, H., Carta, M.G., Angermeyer, M. C. (2011). The stigma of alcohol dependence compared with other mental disorders: A review of population studies. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 46:105–12.

Sharps, P., Campbell, J., Campbell, D., Gary, F. & Webster, D.(2001). The role of alcohol use in intimate partner femicide. American Journal on Addictions, 10: 122-35.

Skinstad, A. H., & Swain, A. (2001). Comorbidity in a clinical sample of substance abusers.

American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27(1), 45-64.

Sher, K. J. (1991) Psychological characteristics of children of alcoholics: overview of research methods and findings. Recent Developments in Alcohol, 9, 301–326.

Stanton, M. D., Todd, T. C., & et al (1982). The family therapy of drug abuse and addiction.

New York: Guilford Press

14

Textor, M. R. (1987). Family therapy with drug addicts: An integrated approach. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(4): 495-507.

United Nation Office on Drug and Crime (2002). Women and drug abuse: The problem in India. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org U .S . Department of Health and Human Services (2009). Drugs in the workplace: what an employer needs to know. Retrieved from http://workplace.samhsa.gov/

Vetere, A., & Henley, M. (2001). Integrating couples and family therapy into a community alcohol service: A pantheoretical approach. Journal of Family Therapy, 23:85-101.

A Publication of Drug Free Nation www.drugfreenation.org