Social issues: Legal history and legalization/criminalization discussion

The other major social issues (NOT unrelated to economics) raised were related to the legal control of drugs.  As pointed out in the in-class discussion (and in the online readings), there are legitimate concerns AND advantages for BOTH (1) keeping drug use and distribution illegal and for (2) legalizing use and/or distribution to some extent or another.  Simply a CHANGE in policy may be more problematic than any one approach.

Clearly, legal control is focused more heavily on the welfare of society and less on the individual.  Further, it sees drug use as a BEHAVIOR that can be willfully changed and, if a threat to society, should be PUNISHED.  In contrast, most legalization views focus on the rights and choices of the INDIVIDUAL.  In this view, the government has the authority to control the behaviors one does while intoxicated (e.g., dangerous driving, criminal behaviors), but not the intoxication itself which would be an individual's choice.

Yes, criminalization does consider the individual (e.g., decreasing availability as a way to prevent use) and legalization considers society (e.g., legalization will take $ from organized crime and place it into legitimate economy), but the major foci in practice are what I've stated above. 

Finally, don't make the common mistake of confusing "harm reduction" with "legalization"-- issues related to reducing harm related to drug use and distribution is separable from the legalization-criminalization debate. Some terms:

Criminalization of drugs-- refers to the current status in the U.S. where manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of certain drugs constitute illegal activities.
Legalization of drugs-- refers to legalizing manufacture, distribution, sale, and use of currently prohibited substances.  Propositions range from some kind of regulated sale and places of use (as is done with alcohol) to no regulation, putting full responsibility on the individual and the marketplace.
Decriminalization-- refers to the elimination or substantial reduction of penalties for possession of drugs for personal use (i.e., no intent to sell or distribute).  The manufacture, distribution, and sale of these same drugs would still be illegal.
Harm reduction-- refers to attempts at reducing the harm (physical, psychological, and social) associated with drug use.  Generally, under this view, drug use is most properly a health issue and should be handled within the medical, not the penal, community.

Arguments for legalization or decriminalization often refer to the harm reduction benefits that may come from such a change.  However, one can find harm reduction proposals that do not alter the legal status of drugs.

Here are some comments/suggestions brought up in your class:

Rationale

How work?

Criminalization:

·         To reduce violence, drug use and addiction;

·         Reduce drug-related activities

·         Provides connectionpoint for treatment *

·         Acts as a preventive measure: fear of jail, mark on record

 

·         Need to connect to treatment systems—prosecute harm; allow for treatment.—based on past history—altering fines/criminal label

·         Need to strengthen by increasing education (add to prevention) but also consider more of a rehabilitation approach if end up in the system

·         Need clear goals for supply reduction--

Legalization:

·         Cut down on societal costs, e.g., justice system—able to shift emphasis to other law enforcement

·         Shifts choice/control back to individuals

·         Provide possible revenue source; use toward control

·         Illegality creates black market, legalization takes motivation out of negative market (economic stimulation—ours and other countries)

 

·         Roll out over time—with lead-in education

·         Stagger the roll-out

·         Need some kind of certification

Other approaches:

1.     Extremes of each too extreme—so shifting to approach similar to dutch approach (e.g., cannabinis legalization or decrim.) And put legal constraints on hard users; “other” drugs

2.     Simple doesn’t work—need a complex solution

3.     Ditto

4.     Again

 

·         Mixed dutch/swiss approach- allow small amounts of marijuana in certified cafes/coffee shops, smoked only in those areas or in private homes (allowed to grow in specific square area of land). Age restrictions.

·         Stops sending people to jail over small amounts of marijuana. Jail system is too costly. Goes with the hard offenders, rather than casual users.

·         Our approach was to make the government the only legal seller of drugs. The proceeds of this sale would be set aside for anti-drug education and enforcement. Using drugs would be legal in designated areas, but possession over a certain maximum amount would be illegal (to crack down on dealers). The government would attempt to undercut all illegal dealers in order to establish a monopoly. Then they would raise the prices, thereby reducing drug use via the laws of supply and demand.

 and click the lightbulb to see suggestions from other classes:

Regarding "harm reduction," refer to the material in the text.  In particular, note Robert MacCoun's concept of “total harm”:

Total drug harm = (Average harm per use) X (Total use)

“Average harm” refers to harm to users (overdose, addiction, AIDS) and to others (accidents, crime); 

“Total use” = number or users and extent each user uses.

            "Average harm" can be reduced when:

distribution taken out of criminal element, 

effects caused by high cost (e.g., robbery) are countered, 

clean needles are available, 

treatment is available...

Much of this might be handled through legalization.  However, through commercialization, there's likely an increase in use, therefore increasing total harm.  (If drugs became harmless, wouldn't that increase use?)

Therefore, MacCoun proposes that the best one can do is try to reduce both, but can’t eliminate harm or use because they require different and opposing strategies.

The question of whether decreasing the harm associated with drug use will increase people’s desire to use the drug is an interesting and tricky question.  

On the one hand, people may argue that in doing so the government will be giving tacit approval to the activity.  This has not held up in analyses of other behavioral domains.   For example, safer sex campaigns and condom distribution programs have not led to increased sexual promiscuity, in fact these often result in reductions in risky behaviors.

On the other hand, will people that wished to avoid associated harms from a drug (like dirty needles, impure drugs) start using if those harms were removed?  Evidence is for a slight increase, but not a dramatic one.  (Remember the issues that combine and compete in the use of the drug—the most salient aspect of whether to try a drug or not is the drug itself and what that’s related to, rather than the difficulties in obtaining, needle cleanliness, etc.)

  

Those that are interested should visit Dr. Robert MacCoun's web page.  He has copies of his testimony to Congress, July 1999, and published articles devoted to the topic of harm reduction.

Return to Drugs Course Index page

Section 4a-1: Societal issues related to drug use and trafficking

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.