| Course | ADC 510 Addiction Theories and Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Policy brief |
| Length | About 1,008 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ADC 510 Module 7
Price, Punishment and Treatment: A Policy Brief for a County Behavioral Health Board
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
ADC 510: Addiction Theories and Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Price, Punishment and Treatment: A Policy Brief for a County Behavioral Health Board
Priya's board has been invited to testify on two bills before the state legislature, one raising alcohol taxes and one reducing penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs. The board also wants to know what it can do locally. Priya, the graduate intern whose work this course follows, prepared this brief. The county and board are invented; the research is real.
The Decision
The board can do two kinds of things. It can take positions on state policy through testimony and its statewide association. And it can fund and organize local programs, such as treatment, prevention and partnerships with police and courts. It cannot set taxes or criminal penalties itself, and it has no authority over how police or prosecutors use their discretion, though it can offer them alternatives.
Alcohol Pricing
Wagenaar et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 1,003 estimates from 112 studies of the relationship between alcohol prices or taxes and drinking. They found a consistent inverse relationship: when prices rose, consumption fell, for beer, wine and spirits and across countries. Effects appeared among heavy drinkers as well as in the general population, which matters because heavy drinkers account for much alcohol-related harm. The authors concluded that alcohol taxes are among the most effective tools available for reducing drinking and its harms. Price increases can also raise revenue that could fund prevention and treatment.
Decriminalization
Hughes and Stevens (2010) examined Portugal's decision in 2001 to decriminalize the acquisition, possession and use of all illicit drugs in quantities for personal use. Possession remained prohibited, but it became an administrative rather than a criminal offense, with people referred to regional panels that could recommend treatment or impose sanctions such as fines. The reform was accompanied by expanded treatment and harm reduction. Hughes and Stevens found reductions in problematic drug use, drug-related HIV infections and deaths and the burden on prisons, with small increases in reported adult drug use and no major rise in drug tourism. They cautioned that the effects reflected the combination of decriminalization with investment in treatment and that other countries would need to consider their own circumstances.
Who Is Arrested
Mitchell and Caudy (2015) used national longitudinal data on young people to examine racial differences in drug arrests. Black young people were more likely to be arrested for drug offenses than white young people, even though they were no more likely to use or sell drugs. Accounting for how much each group used or sold, and for other offenses, left the gap in place; where people lived explained only part of it. The study shows that enforcement-based drug policy falls unequally, with consequences, such as criminal records, that follow people into employment and housing.
Evidence and Values
Evidence can show what a policy is likely to do, but it cannot settle every question. Whether personal drug use should be a crime involves views about liberty, responsibility and the role of government as well as evidence about outcomes. The brief therefore presents the evidence and lets board members weigh it with their own values, while being clear where the evidence is strong, as on alcohol pricing, and where it rests on a single national experience, as on decriminalization.
Why Local Action Matters
State policy changes slowly and sometimes not at all. Local action, by contrast, can begin within months. A deflection program requires no new law, only agreements among the board, the sheriff, police and treatment providers. Whether officers use it, and whether people referred actually enter treatment, are open questions the board's own data can answer within a year, which is reason enough to start small and measure.
Options
| Option | Expected effect | Feasibility for the board | Equity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support higher alcohol taxes | Reduced drinking and harm; new revenue | Testimony only | Price increases weigh more on low-income drinkers, offset if revenue funds services |
| Support reduced penalties for possession, with treatment referral | Fewer criminal records; harms may fall if treatment expands | Testimony only | Reduces unequal consequences of arrest |
| Local deflection program with police | People found with drugs offered treatment referral instead of charges | High: board can fund and organize | Reduces arrests locally; depends on consistent use by officers |
| Expand local treatment capacity | More people treated; necessary for any alternative to arrest | High | Benefits depend on access in all parts of the county |
Unintended Consequences
Each option carries risks. Higher alcohol taxes can push some drinkers toward cheaper or illicit sources and weigh most heavily on people with low incomes, which is why directing revenue to services matters. Reduced penalties without treatment capacity could leave people without the push toward help that some get from the courts. A deflection program could be used unevenly, with some officers referring and others arresting. Naming these risks in advance lets the board design against them and monitor for them.
Recommendations
First, the board should testify in support of the alcohol tax increase, citing Wagenaar and colleagues' evidence and recommending that part of the revenue fund prevention and treatment. Second, it should testify in support of reducing penalties for possession only if the bill includes funding for treatment and harm reduction, citing Hughes and Stevens's conclusion that Portugal's results depended on that investment. Third, regardless of the state's decisions, the board should work with the sheriff and city police to start a deflection program, in which officers who encounter people with small amounts of drugs offer a treatment referral and peer contact instead of arrest. Fourth, it should track who is referred and who is still arrested, by race and by part of the county, to check whether the program reduces disparities of the kind Mitchell and Caudy documented.
Conclusion
Evidence shows that higher alcohol prices reduce drinking, that Portugal's decriminalization combined with treatment reduced harms and that drug enforcement in the United States falls unequally by race. A county board cannot set taxes or penalties, but it can testify, fund treatment and build local alternatives to arrest. The recommendations match the evidence to what the board can do.
References
Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 999-1022. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq038
Mitchell, O., & Caudy, M. S. (2015). Examining racial disparities in drug arrests. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 288-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.761721
Wagenaar, A. C., Salois, M. J., & Komro, K. A. (2009). Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: A meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction, 104(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02438.x
What the ADC 510 Module 7 instructions ask for
The seventh module of ADC 510 usually asks for an analysis of substance use policy. Rely on the Module 7 instructions in your Aspen course; the board here is invented. Frame a decision a real body could make, and say plainly what that body has the power to change. Review evidence on several policy approaches, such as supply, demand and harm reduction. Report effects and limits honestly, including what may not transfer between countries. Address equity. Compare options in a table and recommend actions within the body's authority. Use APA 7 for each study, and distinguish evidence from advocacy. Say how the body would know whether a policy it supports has worked, with measures it can actually collect.
How this ADC 510 Module 7 example is built
The composite board must decide what to say in testimony to the legislature and what to do locally. Wagenaar, Salois and Komro's Addiction meta-analysis shows that higher alcohol prices reduce drinking, including heavy drinking. Hughes and Stevens's British Journal of Criminology article describes Portugal's 2001 decriminalization and its effects on use, harm and prisons. Mitchell and Caudy's Justice Quarterly study shows Black youth arrested for drugs more often despite similar drug activity. A four-row table compares options. The brief recommends supporting an alcohol tax increase, testifying in favor of treatment-based alternatives to arrest and starting a local deflection program with police. Tracking referrals and arrests by race and area tests whether the local program narrows disparities.
Reading the ADC 510 Module 7 grading rubric
A brief does well when the decision it serves is clear, evidence weighed with its limits and recommendations the audience can carry out. This example frames what a county board can and cannot do. Evidence on pricing is reported from a large meta-analysis, and evidence from Portugal is weighed with attention to differences between countries. Equity is addressed with a specific study and with a plan to track disparities locally. The options table compares effects, feasibility and equity. Recommendations distinguish testimony to the state from local action, which keeps them realistic. The paper also separates what the evidence shows from the value judgments that policy choices require, which keeps the brief honest about where advocacy begins.
ADC 510 Module 7 help from the desk
Policy papers often recommend actions far beyond the audience's authority. Frame the decision for a real body. Use strong evidence and report its limits; results from another country may not transfer. Address equity directly. Consider unintended consequences, such as illicit sales under high taxes. Distinguish evidence from values: whether to decriminalize involves both. Recommend what the audience can do, and say how it will know whether the policy worked. Keep the brief short enough for a busy board member to read before a meeting. Lead with the recommendation and put the evidence behind it, since many readers stop after the first page.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More ADC 510 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- ADC 510 Module 1: Epidemiology of Substance Use
- ADC 510 Module 2: Theories of Addiction
- ADC 510 Module 3: Genetic and Biological Factors
- ADC 510 Module 4: Physiological and Psychological Effects
- ADC 510 Module 5: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
- ADC 510 Module 6: Systems and Person-in-Environment Perspective
- ADC 510 Module 8: Treatment and Emerging Drug Trends
- PAC 240 Module 5: Co-Occurring Disorders
- PAC 420 Module 8: Ending and Evaluating Groups
- ADC 630 Module 2: Assessment and Treatment Planning
- PAC 115 Module 6: Terminology in Addiction Studies
ADC 510 Module 7 questions, answered
What does ADC 510 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's ADC 510 covers substance abuse policy in this module, so analyzing policy options with evidence and making recommendations is typical. Open your Module 7 prompt.
Do alcohol taxes reduce drinking?
Wagenaar, Salois and Komro's meta-analysis of 1,003 estimates from 112 studies found that higher alcohol prices and taxes reduce drinking, including among heavy drinkers.
What happened when Portugal decriminalized drugs?
Hughes and Stevens found reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and prison crowding after 2001, without the large increase in use some had predicted.
Where can I find a free ADC 510 Module 7 sample paper?
This page has the full policy brief: alcohol pricing, Portugal's decriminalization and arrest disparities weighed for a county board.
Are there racial disparities in drug arrests?
Mitchell and Caudy found Black young people were arrested for drug offenses more often than white young people, even though the two groups used and sold drugs at similar rates.