West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
Table of Contents
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.....................2 Lindsay Van Luvanee Idaho State University........................................................................................................................2
SECTION 2. RESEARCH GUIDE...........................................................................................................8 AFFIRMATIVE SAMPLE CASE..........................................................................................................11 AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE EXTENSIONS........................................................................................13
PUBLIC HEALTH SOLVES CRIMINAL ABUSES..........................................................................................................13 ILLEGAL DRUGS CAUSE HEALTH CONCERNS AND DEATH.................................................................................14 TREATMENT AND AVOIDING DEATH RATES ARE MOST IMPORTANT..............................................................15 PUBLIC HEALTH COSTS LESS THAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE......................................................................................16 DRUG ABUSE IS EMPIRICALLY A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE....................................................................................17 DRUG TREATMENT FOCUSES ON HEALTH IMPROVEMENT.................................................................................18 ADDICTION MAKES ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE A HEALTH ISSUE............................................................................19 .............................................................................................................................................................................................19 DRUG USE IS INEVITABLY A HEALTH ISSUE............................................................................................................20 CRIMINAL JUSTICE DOESN'T SOLVE PUBLIC HEALTH..........................................................................................21 TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH MAINTAINS FEDERALISM............................22 TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS PUBLIC HEALTH IS A STATE ISSUE.......................................................................23
NEGATIVE CASE..................................................................................................................................24 NEGATIVE EVIDENCE EXTENSIONS..............................................................................................26
PUBLIC HEALTH DOESN'T CHANGE DRUG USE PATTERNS..................................................................................26 DRUG ABUSE LEADS TO CRIME...................................................................................................................................27 DRUG ABUSE SHOULD BE TREATED BOTH AS HEALTH AND CRIMINAL.........................................................28 DRUGS SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED.........................................................................................................................29 CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOLVES PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS...................................................................................30 ADDICTION IS NO EXCUSE............................................................................................................................................31 PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE SHOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.............................................................................32 PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE IS HEINOUS........................................................................................................................33 PUNITIVE MEASURES ARE MILD BUT EFFECTIVE..................................................................................................34
West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. Lindsay Van Luvanee Idaho State University
The abuse of illegal drugs has been a contentious issue, both in the United States and around the world, since the mid 1800s. The controversy surrounding the abuse has been about whether it should be treated as a health concern or as a matter of criminal justice. Currently, between one half and one third of prison inmates meet the standards for drug abuse and dependency, and of those many are at risk for associated health problems. However, this doesn't resolve the questions raised about how to view illegal drug abuse. Central to this is the role of governments to either prevent or punish illegal drug abuse. This brief is designed to introduce the issues relevant to the resolution and provide resources for continued research. It has three main components. The first section provides an overview of the issues and includes and examination of key terms and resolutional analysis. The second provides a research guide to assist in further, independent research about the resolution. Finally, it provides a sample affirmative and negative case, as well as additional evidence. SECTION 1. THE DEBATE OVER ILLEGAL DRUGS This section is meant to introduce the relevant issues pertaining to the status of the abuse of illegal drugs. First, it discusses how the abuse of drugs has been treated historically, as well as the justifications for treating it as either a public health or a criminal justice issue. Second, it defines the terms of the resolution and describes the ways that these terms will likely frame the debate. Finally, it provides a couple potential strategies and case areas for both the affirmative and the negative. 1. A. OVERVIEW History of Illegal Drugs Throughout history, the purpose of drugs and the legal status of them has seemed to be in a constant state of flux. Drugs that were once used to aid in other addictions, such as cocaine have since become illegal, and other drugs that were once illegal, such as marijuana, are starting to become relics of health. The original source of drug control was that of opium in China in the mid 1800s when Chinese officials were afraid that opium addiction in the country was disrupting the strong position it had in trade. At the time China still had one of the largest populations on the planet, about ten million of which were addicted to opium, which was an import from the British. In order to counteract this unbalanced trade, China hoped to stifle the opium market within its borders. It did so by placing stiff penalties such as floggings, imprisonment, and strangulation for opium users and traffickers. Chinese officials also started confiscating opium from British ships whenever they would reach shore. Since Britain's trade of opium to China was its primary export, the British were not so willing to give up their key export to their best customer. This sparked a war between China and Britain that lasted three years until a treaty was signed that ceded Hong Kong to British rule. The prohibition of opium, however, remained intact. In 1909, the United States followed China's suit and banned the importation, possession, and smoking of opium, marking the first time in the United States that non-medical use of a substance was outlawed. It was still unregulated in the medical field and still allowed many opiates to be produced and remained widespread in homes because the medical versions were so available. Until the early 1920s, cocaine was legally imported and frequently used by pharmaceutical companies. It had many restrictions much like the ones alcohol has today. For example, it could not be sold to minors, known addicts, in large quantities, or for recreation. Due to lack of information about the way that addiction worked, it was commonly used as a cure for alcoholism and opium addiction, and could be found in household products such as Coca-Cola.
West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
In 1920 itself, the prohibition of alcohol was enacted in the United States. Many scholars believe this came about because of a disproportionately high protestant immigrant population, large political names and interest groups that fought for temperance, and influence from nine other North American and European countries. There were many reasons for prohibition’s repeal in 1933. There were vast public outcries. People believed that the role of state governments had been violated. The federal government was suffering due to lack of tax income from alcohol sales, which before prohibition, made up twenty to thirty percent of its revenue. Given the effect that the Great Depression had at the time, this was a huge factor, along with the potential job market that selling alcohol would open up. It had also become such a regulation nightmare, causing more crime than it was originally intended to help prevent. The same was true for every other country that had some form of prohibition in effect at the time, although the United States was one of the last to repeal. Prohibition was substituted with a different set of regulations on alcohol, many of which are still observed today. For example, a legal drinking age was implemented and most control over alcohol laws shifted back to the states. The laws in states vary from the time and locations from which certain types of alcohol can be purchased to penalties for failure to adhere to laws. In the 1960s Richard Nixon was elected into the presidency of the United States. Because he believed drugs to be a major health concern as well as the key to being able to access certain criminal activity, Nixon and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs dramatically overstated some drug abuse statistics in order to nip the problem in the bud and start an all out war on drugs. In 1971, Nixon declared drugs to be America's number one enemy and declared the War on Drugs. One of the first policies was the creation of the Drug Enforcement Administration in order to coordinate and streamline all other policies and efforts to be passed. President Ronald Reagan was the next to make the War on Drugs one of his top priorities. In 1986, he signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act which allocated large sums of money to drug abuse prevention and awareness, and created minimum penalties for drug offenses. Soon thereafter, President George H.W. Bush created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which aimed to make drug use socially unacceptable and stigmatizing. The War on Drugs has focused primarily on psychoactive drugs. While the War on Drugs seems a noble cause, it has come under much scrutiny over the years for a wide variety of reasons. Some believe many of its policies to be racist based on the types of drugs that are chosen to be focused on, for example, the difference in penalties between crack and powdered cocaine. Others believe that it is simply an infeasible war to be fought, requiring more manpower and equipment around the United States policing drug labs and fields, as well as in other countries where drug crops are primarily grown, and believe these resources would be better spent elsewhere. Many others also believe that the War on Drugs exists solely to be able to suspend rights in order to streamline legal process and have the ability to maintain legitimacy while doing so. Most recently in this discrepancy between the legitimacy and failures of the War on Drugs, marijuana has taken center stage. It is estimated that marijuana started being used for its psychoactive purposes in the early 1900s as a cheap alternative to alcohol. However, in the time surrounding 1937, when marijuana was banned, the attitude surrounding it had become more negative. It was labeled as a narcotic by the federal government and first time offenders would be sentenced to anywhere from five to twenty years. Since the 1960s, movements in favor of marijuana and hemp have been on the rise. Proponents cite many advantages to the plants, including economic, durability and ecological benefits in manufacturing things like textiles, paper, and even gasoline. Advocates also cite many medicinal uses such as the nutritional value the seeds provide and the anti-nauseant and appetite enhancement properties that aid in cancer treatment. It also acts as a muscle relaxant, analgesic, anticonvulsant, anti-asthmatic, and a treatment for glaucoma. However, many opponents argue that many of the medical risks of marijuana outweigh the benefits. They argue that smoking marijuana causes lung damage, cancer, less effective immune systems, can lead to psychological dependency on the substance, and is often the stepping-stone to other addictive drugs. They also argue that there are many viable alternatives that have less harmful effects from smoke and fewer to no psychoactive properties. The use of medicinal marijuana is currently allowed in 14 states, as well as several other North American and European countries. However, in the United States, use of marijuana is still illegal on a federal level. This puts marijuana at the nexus of many different debates occurring in the United States today. It raises the question of which entities should have
and vice versa. the use of medicines in a non-prescribed manner would be drug-abuse. drinking alcohol in moderation in certain settings is not considered drug abuse. It sits on the middle ground between criminal and health under many different levels of government in a wide variety of places. The threshold for abuse of illegal drugs may vary. the taking of Valium prescribed by your doctor is drug not abuse. it is an arbitrary standard. http://www. or using in a fashion that is not condoned by society is drug abuse. contentment. The best example of this quandary is with marijuana. and taking the same pills if given by a friend is. Contrarily. the question of federalism. public health. for example. or a derivative of cocoa or poppy) which produces a state of arousal. And socially. Or. Similarly. Conversely. nicotine. legally. the use of any illegal drug could be construed as drug-abuse. http://science. Continued or excessive use (called drug abuse or substance abuse) of such substances causes addiction or dependence. B. DEFINITIONS AND RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS Overview Since there is no definitive actor provided within the resolution. legal and medical construction. and that is public health is a clearer way to treat it. However. the negative can argue that the distinct laws treat it as required based on the abuse specific to their area of jurisdiction. accessed: 7/2/10. there are disparities between many different states and the federal government. accessed: 7/2/10.htm Discussion: The word abuse in the resolution could have many different meanings. cannabis. The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology. whether their legality trumps the potential help benefits. perform appropriate actions. there are more possibilities because of various legal statutes that define criminal drug use and abuse differently. for criminal justice. however. Illegal Drugs Definition: Habit forming stimulant or narcotic substance (such as alcohol. using certain drugs that are not accepted by wider society.state. It also raises the question of how illegal drugs should be treated in the first place.education. or euphoria.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/other/glossary/glossary.
. abuse could mean once illegal drug use poses a substantive health risk (which has many different valuations in itself) or any misuse. and tremors which cease when the use is resumed. Fourteen states currently allow medicinal use of marijuana. Also called illegal drug where its production and/or use is prohibited. and fulfill responsibilities with the result that the person is unable to be a law abiding and self-supporting individual. abuse can mean use outside of legal terms. or to alter or avoid reality (or all three).us/about/policies/glossary_d Definition (Drug Abuse): The use of illegal drugs or the inappropriate use of legal drugs.vt. accessed: 7/2/10. Whether a substance is legal or illegal. 1.treatment-now. the affirmative can argue that since there are such a wide variety of laws that treat drug abuse criminally. both addictive and harmful. Within the United States alone. Thus. which could include any use since illegal drugs are what is in question by the resolution. even down to county laws. many people talk about drug-use rather than abuse. This is because they are all legal terms of art that have very different meanings and ways of being dealt with for every governing entity. Medically.doc.com/resources/definitions Definition (Drug Abuse): The use of a drug (either licit or illicit) in sufficient quantity and frequency to interfere with a person's ability to make sound life decisions. The repeated use of drugs to produce pleasure. Because of the value-laden nature of the term. Source: National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Drug Abuse. within the realm of public health. this will put the terms illegal drugs. the affirmative can choose to focus on a specific set of laws under a specific government as a case study. Source: Vermont Department of Corrections: Agency of Human Services. Controlling the word abuse. Abuse Definition: The term drug-abuse is a social. but it is still illegal on the federal level. may have nothing to do with its potential for addiction or harm: alcohol and nicotine. the negative can say that the resolution only asks for the desirability of choosing ways to treat illegal drugs in a more generalized form. Penalties also differ in severity based on different states. Thereafter any attempt to discontinue their use results in specific reactions (called withdrawal symptoms) such as sweating.and criminal justice into contention. For instance. or rather.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
the final say in how to treat drug issues.nih. Because of this. vomiting. as it is the object of the resolution. to alleviate stress. Source: Treatment Now. controls the way that it should be framed as either a criminal or a risky health behavior. are legal in most countries because they generate substantial employment or government revenue through taxes. http://www. while drinking a bottle of spirits a night is. especially when held in the two different contexts outlined by the resolution—public health and criminal justice.
http://www. In order to prove whether this moral obligation exists. accessed: 7/10/10. Public Health Definition: Discusses and acts on issues that affect the general health of a community. The moral obligations that should be investigated for the cases should be based in whichever government is chosen or not chosen. On the other hand. accessed: 7/3/10.thefreedictionary. For example. 2000. Source: Australia's Health. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary. infectious diseases and illness prevention.com/topic/criminal-justice
. incarceration. prosecution. accessed: 7/2/10. http://www. 1996. premature death. http://www. The programs. the affirmative could specify certain drugs that mandate that illegal drug abuse be viewed as a public health concern.com/ought Definition: Used to indicate probability. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary. it might be difficult to decide which should be included in an affirmative or negative case. defense.gov. For example. http://www. but the goals remain the same: to reduce the amount of disease. specific procedures with which to handle issues.au/publications/aus/ah96/ah96-x04. the negative can argue that public health is more of an arbitrary standard to evaluate the legality than that of criminal justice which has set. and restore the people's health.com/ought Definition: Used to indicate advisability or prudence. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
Source: Business Dictionary.ak Definition: One of the efforts organised by society to protect. Source: Southcentral Foundation. the judiciary.thefreedictionary. Public health is thus a social institution. Since the resolution assumes governing entities. promote. the negative can argue that governments have a duty to ensure that laws are followed. accessed: 7/3/10. both sides must go beyond the simple advantages and disadvantages of public health versus criminal justice. and supervision of those suspected of or charged with criminal offenses.thefreedictionary. accessed: 7/2/10. 2000. the bar. and which way they should be treated.thefreedictionary. Ought Definition: Used to indicate obligation or duty.com/ought Definition: Used to indicate desirability. 2000. skills. 2000. Often involves issues such as water safety. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary. Therefore. http://www. Public health activities change with changing technology and social values. such as with intravenous drugs since they care such a high risk of HIV/AIDS and other blood diseases. It is a term with goals that are in constant flux.it can be argued that governments have a moral obligation to protect the welfare and health of its citizens. http://www. accessed: 7/3/10.html Discussion: Since public health can be defined and operates in a few different ways. and institutions involved emphasise the prevention of disease and the health needs of the population as a whole. sentencing. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary. housing. a discipline. as explained in the overview. and that viewing these certain drugs in that context outweighs any criminal activities that may follow. the moral obligations of different governing entities may differ. http://www.cc/research/glossary. accessed 7/11/10. and probation that is directly involved in the apprehension. Criminal Justice Definition: The system of law enforcement. services. that the affirmative must defend all illegal drugs under the frame of public health. on the affirmative.html Discussion: Since the resolution doesn't specify which illegal drugs should be viewed as either a public health or criminal justice issue.aihw.com/definition/drug. and beliefs that are directed to the maintenance and improvement of the health of all the people through collective or social actions.businessdictionary. corrections. it is important to find the part of it that best fits the purposes of the case being made. sanitation. the negative may argue that since the resolution calls for illegal drugs in their generalized form.com/ought Discussion: This word will often imply a moral obligation to view the abuse of illegal drugs as either a public health or a criminal justice issue. and a practice.answers. immunizations. accessed: 7/3/10. It is the combination of sciences. http://www. Conversely.scf. and disease-produced discomfort and disability in the population.
arresting the accused. Treating the issue of drug abuse as an issue of public health is a more subjective system that takes these people into account rather than that of its more objective counterpart of criminal justice. carrying out punishment. All that has to be done to accomplish this is to prove that illegal drug abuse is not solely a public health issue. making defense. Therefore. The possibilities for this disadvantage are endless. and ever people with prescription medications. abuse of illegal drugs is an involuntary reaction to the drugs. accessed: 7/10/10. Next is how benign it
. for the affirmative to be able to specify reasons why illegal drugs should not be evaluated as a criminal justice issue on the whole they will have to prove reasons why certain penal codes are too strict and how certain criminalization policies may worsen the problem.com/definitions/criminal-justice. the traditional burdens of the affirmative and negative may be reversed. TOPIC STRATEGIES AFFIRMATIVE ADDICTION IS INVOLUNTARY More often than not. In this sense. Another issue is that some people were introduced to drugs against their own will and compulsively use them at very little fault of their own. If this is the case. it is placed into a situation where it may find itself wanting to incorporate the entirety of the affirmative's case. Federalism is a driving force that keeps the powerful from becoming too powerful and prevents abuses of power. In this particular case. the addiction that follows is not something that is easily helped. rape victims. the exact inverse is not necessarily true for the negative. Addiction is considered a disease. http://www. For those that willingly took drugs and became addicted. for the good of the public health. such as infants.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
Definition: It is a term used for the series of steps involved in proving any criminal activity like gathering evidences. Criminal justice and public health often overlap. are that the affirmative ignores an entire group of people who exhibit abusive drug behavior. conducting trials. and that criminal justice is not. Whereas many states are starting to treat marijuana as a prescription medication. just for illegal actions surrounding it. there is an intense bodily and psychological desire to use it anyways. people should not be punished for having abused illegal drugs. Source: Legal Explanations. there are still raids on the companies by the Drug Enforcement Agency. NEGATIVE THE ABUSE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS AS BOTH PUBLIC HEALTH AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE While the affirmative is locked into defending that public health is a good way to treat illegal drug abuse. In this category are people forced to take them. The illegal drug abuser is often stigmatized in this process. also given the resolution. Failure to do so results in withdrawal symptoms. An example. even though they have initial blame. They are seen as a cancer to society that needs to be cut out. the negative does not have to defend either public health or criminal justice as an option. the negative can argue that the resolution calls for the generalized wholesale rejection of all laws in the criminal justice system as a way to treat illegal drug abuse. BIOPOWER Biopower is the concern for life addressed by politics.htm Discussion: The punishments doled out for illegal drug abuse are different for each governing entity. One can't choose to simply get rid of this part of themselves. C. Also. However.legal-explanations. FEDERALISM Marijuana provides the case study for discrepancies between state and federal law in the United States. it deals with the quality of life in a few different ways. Even though most addicts do not wish to be under the control of substance. such as the majority of the imprisoned community. Where the negative may usually have to prove itself exclusive with the affirmative. many of which can make the person physically ill. 1. however. the negative must provide a disadvantage to solely treating illegal drugs as a public health issue. and that not all instances of this are good. and therefore should be a health issue. First is the stigmatization of illegal drug abuse. pronouncing judgement after the crime is proved. Federalism also allows for specific states to be able to be reflexive in their own laws which best suit the situation under their particular jurisdiction. On the other hand.
for their health. for harm reduction. It appears to be for the good of the individual in the context of the general population.
. while simultaneously stigmatizing that portion of the population.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
appears to have a benevolent reason to either punish or extend the hand of health to the illegal drug abuser.
” Journal of Drug Issues. 1910-45. Arthur. RESEARCH GUIDE
2.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
SECTION 2.nih. “War or Pseudo-War?” Social Justice.nida.” 4/20/2010. 2007.” National Institutes of Health.gov/tib/drugs_crime. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ESSAYS National Institute of Drug Abuse. the Opium War.org/templates/story/story.html This article provides an investigation into possible treatment routes for drug abuse in order to help both the safety the health of the community. Army JFK Special Warfare Center and editor of Strategy and Tactics magazine.3. Miranda also provides the constructs surrounding the war that allow its continued existence.2.” Essortment. “The Opium War. accessed: 7/10/10. March 2009.htm In this essay. http://www.” April 2. Canadian Writer.2. order
NPR. 1998.naabt. “Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety.com/all/opiumwarchina_rnvr. 28. This essay tracks use patterns of cocaine in the United States. Joseph is former instructor at the U. Montague.org/laws. Miranda attempts to demonstrate reasons why the War on Drugs is and isn't working. mainly in the first half of the twentieth century in to predict when the next fall in the pattern will happen. “Timeline: America's War on Drugs. opiate
Lawrence Schrad. Mark. China and
The National Alliance of Advocates for Buprenorphine Treatment. Lawrence Schrad attempts to fill in the gaps of what he believes were the causes of the enactment and repeal of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. 2007. Miranda. “Constitutional Blemishes: American Alcohol Prohibition and Repeal as Policy Punctuation.S. 1998. 2002. In this essay. While providing real-world examples based in projections made and empirical failures surrounding those projections.essortment. “Did Drug Prohibition Work?: Reflections on the End of the First Cocaine Experience in the United States. Montague describes the first war on drugs in history. “A History of Opiate opoid Laws in the United States. http://www. fought between Britain and between 1839 and 1842.
.npr. Department of Political Science at Villanova University. accessed 7/10/10 http://www.cfm Here the National Alliance of Advocates for Buprenorphine Treatment put together a comprehensive history of laws within the United States. 35. 1839-1842.” Policy Studies Journal. Spillane. A. http://www. Joseph is Associate Professor of History at the University of Floriday. 25. accessed: 7/10/10.php storyId=9252490 NPR provides a comprehensive timeline with analysis pulled from their Frontline series on the War on Drugs in America. accessed: 7/10/10.
Morse. 2. C. is Professor and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs at Claremont University. Simon. 23. 2002.3.” William and Mary Law Review. director of the Center for Religion. It aims to find a new way to research the effects.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
. pregnant women.” ProCon. Peter is a retired editorial page editor and columnist for the Sacramento Bee and has been writing for The Nation for nearly a half-century .” Journal of Public Health Policy. 2006. Stacy .” Fordham Urban Law Journal. and explores whether or not this group of people should be treated criminally or through public health initiatives. 69. Kay tries to make sense of the current cost-benefit analysis that current drug policy employs by examining the effects that this system has had on the United states and explores the merits behind prohibition and harm reduction.4. Law and Democracy at Willamette University. Clyde W. Karen is Director of State Policies for Marijuana Policy Project. Dent.2. Alan W. 26. Misner. In this article. is with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The Agony of Ecstasy: Reconsidering the Punitive Approach to United States Drug Policy. beneficial or not. Genetics and Criminal Responsibility. 2006. Kay. Schrag explores the reasons why the War on Drugs is failing.” Law and Contemporary Problems. B. 33. such as drug addiction. This essay investigates and tracks the value shifts in the American public as well as the criminal justice system.. “A Strategy for Mercy. and why the general public and many states are rebelling against the federal government on the issue of drugs. Campbell. 41. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. 1996. Amanda. including the abuse of illegal drugs.5. “14 Legal Medical Marijuana States. “Addiction.1-2.org/view. Steve is a drug-abuse researcher and professor at USC. http://medicalmarijuana. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Schrag. “A Quagmire for Our Time: the War on Drugs. and apply that to the way that marijuana is treated in the United States.4. This article takes a specific sect of the illegal drug-abusing community.” Journal of Drug Issues. Nancy D.resource. 2000. accessed: 7/10/10. “The Construction of Pregnant Drug-Using Women as Criminal Perpetrators. In this article Morse explores accounts of criminal responsibility in order to understand other variables that come play with it. 2002. is Senior Research Scientist at the Oregon Public Health Division.procon. Anderson is Professor and Dean of the School of Community and Global Health at Claremont University. 6/24/2010. Stephen J. Johnson. This article explores the history of marijuana in the United States and gives very detailed explanations of the properties of the substance. She places this in the context of what it means for punitive actions taken against drug users. O'Keefe.” Fordham Urban Law Journal. is a professor of law. “Marijuana Use: Current Issues and New Research Directions. and the effects this has on the country as a whole. 29.php?resourceID=000881 This is a frequently updated list of states that allow medicinal use of marijuana that includes summaries of the provisions in the laws allowing them as well as the laws themselves. is a professor of science and technology studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Robert L. Thomas R.
2-3.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. More important. Andrew. or local-ought to have primacy in making and enforcing drug control policy? Which should have the authority to choose whether punishment or treatment of drug users will be emphasized in a particular locale? And what role should the other levels of government play in implementing such a choice? Bullington. citing specifically residential treatment facilities as a case study. This article explores the questions of: which level of government-federal. past and present. it investigates the models of prohibition versus the models of harm reduction.” Contemporary Drug Problems. In doing so. This article concerns the United States' role in international drug policy making.1.” Vanderbilt Law Review. given our history of missed opportunities to reduce the harms connected with HIV/ AIDS. 35. “Drug Policy Reform and Its Detractors: the United States as the Elephant in the Closet. 57. This article attempts to answer the questions: Why is the United States so resistant to public health strategies that find wide acceptance in many other wealthy democracies? This old question remains pressing.3. state. Armstrong explores the ways in which illegal drugs become legal under certain circumstances. 2004. 34. “Federalism and Drug Control. can we do better? Gottschalk. “The Moral. Michael M. Harold is the Helen Ross Professor at the School of Social Service Administration and faculty chair of the Center for Health Administration Studies at the University of Chicago. Pollack. 84. is Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Law at Marquette University.3.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
O’Hear.7. 2006. 2004. Armstrong. 94. 2008. “Dismantling the Carceral State: the Future of Penal Policy Reform. Marie is a professor of political science at Yale University. This article explores what Gottschalk believes are the proper ways to handle drug abuse within the criminal justice system. Prudential and Political Arguments about Harm Reduction.” Journal of Drug Issues.
. “Drug Courts and the De Facto Legalization of Drug Use for Participants in Residential Treatment Facilities. Bruce is Associate Professor of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. 2004.” Texas Law Review.
gov. The failure to provide services to substance users who do not have an interest in abstinence is at least in part related to the concept of enabling. http://bitbucket. Higgins et al. few initial demands are made on service users. not of criminal justice. and fulfill responsibilities with the result that the person is unable to be a law abiding and self-supporting individual.anra. Kang et al. Darke. or even to provide them with standardized heroin. Crowley. Gary. Ph. Abstinence may not be a practical approach for all substance users. and Parkinson. 1992). IMPORTANT DEFINTIONS: ABUSE. The result is a mutually exclusive choice between abstinence-oriented interventions and all other services. 1996. VALUE: SOCIAL WELFARE Australians and Natural Resource Management. 1998. Thomas. the abstinence orientation views individuals who are not immediately interested in complete abstinence as resistant or unservable (Miller & Rollnick. or perhaps with a safe place to shoot-up. 1994). In this report the term is used with reference to results derived from a non-market valuation of environmental resources.. accessed 7/13/10. CRITERION: HARM REDUCTION Drislane.THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ENFORCES AN ABSTINENCE ONLY APPROACH TO DRUG ABUSE. Robert is a professor of sociology at Thompson Rivers University. Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences. 1984. provide drug users with clean needles. etc.pl?alpha=H A term often used in the discussion of drug users. Hall.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
AFFIRMATIVE SAMPLE CASE
I stand in affirmation of the resolution Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health. which posits that family members and friends often allow or facilitate substance use (Miller & Millman.
. Yoshioka. All of this will reduce harm to the ‘offenders’ but in the long-term should also reduce harm to the community. perform appropriate actions.D. 1996). 1993. DENYING THOSE THAT STRUGGLE WITH ADDICTION SAFE ALTERNATIVES Macmaster.au/topics/economics/pubs/national/anrm-report/glossary.” Social Work. Or the community could provide a safe area for prostitutes to work. abstinence-based substance abuse services are not accessible to everyone because of financial and other constraints (Hay Group. In the enabling concept.3. 49. Of particular importance to the present discussion. March 2002. accessed 7/13/10. is Associate Professor of College of Social Work at University of Tennessee Knoxville. perhaps focusing on punishment or rehabilitation.. & Zhang.org/dict.html Social welfare can be considered to be the well-being of the community as a whole. the system tries to reduce the harm that comes to such offenders. Research also suggests that substance users are more likely to use "low threshold" programs where admissions criteria are relaxed. “Harm Reduction: A New Perspective on Substance Abuse Services. 2004. Murphy.icaap. http://www. The literature on abstinence-based substance abuse treatment suggests that most service users do not abstain and often do not complete programs (Booth. Athabasca University. Also. Australian Government. Samuel A. Rather than taking a moralistic approach. prostitutes. For example. 1989. provide free testing for infectious diseases. & Ager. & Mattick. CONTENTION ONE: TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INCREASES HEALTH RISKS AND DEATH A . FROM THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS The use of a drug (either licit or illicit) in sufficient quantity and frequency to interfere with a person's ability to make sound life decisions. and punitive sanctions are not placed on continued substance use (Ward. etc. 1991). The welfare impacts of a policy that affects those non-market values can be considered the impacts to society’s overall well-being. Wenger & Rosenbaum. 1991). any intervention or program that stops short of requiring abstinence is not likely to be effective and may facilitate or enable substance use.
2003. many of the most harmful consequences of substance use (HIV/AIDS. Quite simply. 1991.HARM REDUCTION RECOGNIZES THAT THE RISK OF DISEASE OUTWEIGHS THE RISK OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND IS THE ONLY PROGRAM THAT ADDRESSES THAT Macmaster. A recent development is the rapid adoption of harm reduction among HIV/AIDS services providers in the United States in response to the association between HW/AIDS risk and injection drug use (Clapp & Burke.co. and so forth) can be eliminated without complete abstinence. Samuel A. 2004. harm reduction seeks to eliminate the negative consequences of phenomena for the members of a society without necessarily eliminating the phenomena (Des Jarlais. Practitioners using this perspective develop interventions that reduce drug-related harm without necessarily promoting abstinence as the only solution. it is not synonymous with legalization. HIV/ AIDS prevention took priority over preventing substance use. The study is the latest to point to contaminated needles as a major cause of HIV in Africa. van Laar.” Social Work. 1995. 1997). Substance use has and will be part of our world. Some researchers believe as many as 40% of HIV infections in African adults are linked to injections. 2004. “Harm Reduction: A New Perspective on Substance Abuse Services. Substance use must be understood from a broad perspective and not solely as an individual act. “Dirty Needles Blamed for HIV. Based on a public health model of social problems. 49. experts have claimed.3. automobile accidents.” May 6. de Zwart. CONTENTION TWO: HARM REDUCTION SOLVES A . PUTTING THEM AND OTHERS AT RISK FOR DISEASES SUCH AS HIV/AIDS BBC News. 1996. Drucker. accepting this idea moves interventions from coercion and criminal justice solutions to a public health or social work perspective. Harm reduction is a conceptual framework that provides for individuals willing to be engaged in services. 1996. "dead addicts don't recover" (Vail & Stokes. Scavuzzo. The preventable harm caused by HIV/AIDS clearly outweighs the need to adhere to the abstinence-based perspective. 49. Springer.HARM REDUCTION USES A REALISTIC APPROACH TO THE NATURE OF DRUG ABUSE Macmaster. is Associate Professor of College of Social Work at University of Tennessee Knoxville. Substance use inherently causes harm. Researchers have suggested hundreds of thousands of children may have contracted the virus in this way.bbc. Common to discussions of harm reduction (Des Jarlais. 1996. http://news. 3. B .West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
B – THOSE STRUGGLING MAINTAIN UNSAFE HABITS.” Social Work.
. however. but it is only one of many possible objectives of services to substance users. 1995). In this context. accessed: 7/13/10. overdoses. Samuel A. Harm Reduction Coalition. 1996) are five assumptions: 1. although the two are often confused (United Nations International Drug Control Programme [UNIDCP]. & Mensink. hepatitis C. Abstinence from substances is clearly effective at reducing substance-related harm. Services to substance users must be relevant and user friendly if they are to be effective in helping people minimize their substance-related harm.uk/2/hi/health/2995779. Primarily viewed as a policy framework. “Harm Reduction: A New Perspective on Substance Abuse Services. 4.3.stm Children in South Africa are being infected with HIV through dirty needles. 5. 2. 1999). but not immediately seeking abstinence. 1999). accepting this reality leads to a focus on reducing drug-related harm rather than reducing drug use. is Associate Professor of College of Social Work at University of Tennessee Knoxville.
raises concerns regarding the conduct of law enforcement officials in several countries towards drug abusers: People who use drugs make especially easy targets for arrest or ill-treatment by police needing to fulfill arrest quotas. http://www. TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS CRIMINAL LEADS TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS Takahashi. TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS A CRIMINAL ISSUE LEADS TO ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM Takahashi. More than 1. Academics have also made similar points. was employed until March 2009 at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. as Human Rights Watch has documented in reports on Russia. and attorneys and social workers to drug users in Ukraine have reported. “Testimony on Oversight of Agency Efforts to Prevent and Treat Drug Abuse. March 18. Tom Obokata. extort money from drug users by threatening to detain them. “Drug Control. in a joint paper with the International Harm Reduction Association. There have been a number of reports in recent months regarding human rights as it relates to drug control that raise issue with international efforts against drug abuse and illicit drug trafficking. Human Rights. as Drug Control Officer in the Convention Evaluation Section of the International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat. seizure. A former senior detective specializing in drug enforcement cases.” Human Rights Quarterly.
.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE EXTENSIONS
PUBLIC HEALTH SOLVES CRIMINAL ABUSES
1.2 million of them have histories of drug and alcohol abuse and addiction. For hundreds of thousands of these individuals drug abuse and addiction is the core problem that prompted their criminal activity. accessed: 7/16/10. Our prison and punishment approach to substance abuse is not sufficient by itself. Instances of physical and verbal abuse during search. Seventy percent or 1. forcing them to suffer withdrawal and deny medical assistance to drug users. for example. as Drug Control Officer in the Convention Evaluation Section of the International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat. Saul. The Beckley Foundation. “Drug Control. WHICH IS ONLY POSSIBLE THROUGH TREATING IT AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH Autry.S. 31. and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. 1999. adolescents. was employed until March 2009 at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The war on drugs in some parts of the world also has resulted in the extrajudicial killing not only of traffickers. 31.html The relationship between crime and drugs and the cost of drugs and crime to our country is clear. Joseph is Acting Deputy Administrator of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. that police intentionally use withdrawal as an investigative tool to coerce incriminating testimony from drug users.” U. and children in need of substance abuse prevention and treatment services before they reach the criminal justice system. for example.3.7 million people are behind bars in America at an annual cost to the taxpayer of $38 billion. Saul. Kazakhstan. has examined numerous issues related to drug control and human rights.gov/asl/testify/t990318c. Department of Health and Human Services. including the death penalty and human rights violations in the course of law enforcement operations against drug traffickers and abusers. He rightly notes that law enforcement practices against traffickers and narcotics users also raise a series of human rights concerns. 2. Human Rights Watch. August 2009. 3. and arrest of those suspected of narcotics related offences have been reported. . Instead we need to approach drug abuse as a public health issue and invest our resources in reaching adults. Human Rights. for example. and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues. Police also use drug addiction as a tool to coerce incriminating testimony from drug users.” Human Rights Quarterly. .3.hhs. but also of innocent civilians. and Ukraine. August 2009. and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues. . DRUG ABUSE SHOULD BE PREVENTED BEFORE IT REACHES THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
2002. 2. “U." Friedman (1998.” Canadian Journal of Public Health. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. p. or addiction. suggesting that current approaches were not successful in this area. "Another effect of prohibition is increased uncertainty about product quality. They include transmission of HIV and other diseases. inhibition of voluntary pursuit of treatment. p." These individuals are more likely to suffer the severe health consequences associated with drug use.S. Drucker (p. Resignato. 2000) Drucker (1999.
. An increasing number of scholars from the social science and scientific/medical fields argue that law enforcement approaches may serve to aggravate the public health costs associated with illicit drug use. 34. is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. recent research has found that increases in drug enforcement are associated with higher rates of violent crime (Rasmussen. and this is where public health costs associated with illicit drug use increased the most. abuse. Duncan (1994) analyzed the statistical relationship between drug law enforcement expenditures and drug-related deaths and reached similar conclusions. poor quality control. substance abuse services have had "abstinence" as the dominant goal and as a result of this focus. Paul R. the result is that more. programs for individuals who currently use drugs have not been well represented in the service spectrum. 210) argued that drug prohibition leads to "compounding harm to users" because of the uncertain quality of drugs and behaviors such as needle sharing that spread diseases. Mark works for Vancouver Coastal Health. 1993. Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes." He noted that during the 1980s and 1990s when law enforcement resources for drug control increased substantially. & Sollars. and Blackley. Drug enforcement and arrests were disproportionately concentrated in urban areas with large minority populations. 2004.6. drug-related emergencies and deaths occur. INTRAVENOUS DISEASES MAKE DRUG ABUSE A PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN Haden. Miron and Zwiebel (1995. 93." and concluded "accidental poisonings and overdoses will occur more frequently in a prohibited market. “Illicit IV Drugs: a Public Health Approach. 179) noted.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
ILLEGAL DRUGS CAUSE HEALTH CONCERNS AND DEATH
1. 15) maintained that law enforcement approaches to enforcing drug prohibition served to "criminalize and marginalize drug users and increase drug-related risks to life and health. p. Lastly. Benson. 226).” Journal of Drug Issues. The HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C epidemics among intravenous drug users have led to the discussion of new public health "harm reduction" service principles which begin to address the specific needs of this drug using population.a causal factor responsible for worsening many of the social and public health problems that we normally attribute to drug use per se." MacCoun and Reuter (2001) provided an extensive review of the evidence from the social sciences and identified several ways in which drug prohibition and enforcement activities can lead to adverse public health consequences. drug related emergency room visits and drug-related deaths and concluded that "drug law enforcement can also be viewed as an independent variable . p. arrests. Nadelmann (1988. not fewer. 25) evaluated historical data on enforcement. He found that drug-induced deaths are positively associated with drug enforcement expenditures and concluded that the evidence "does not support the view that the enforcement of drug laws protects the public health" (Duncan. DRUG ENFORCEMENT LEADS TO GREATER HEALTH HARMS AND DEATH TO USERS SINCE THEIR USE IS UNREGULATED Shepard. Historically.4. p. and restrictions on medical uses. 12) suggested that successful drug enforcement operations might increase the health costs associated with illicit drug use because the disruption of supply networks leads the drug user to "seek out new and hence less reliable suppliers. overdose deaths and emergency room visits also increased.
According to Duncan (1988. mortality data are "among the most complete and reliable data by which the public health can be measured" (see also Ferrara.000 drug-induced deaths per year as a result. The estimated elasticity of 1. and treatment for the years 1981 to 1998. The number of deaths and age-adjusted mortality rates due to drug use as published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC. and further research in this area is needed. Shepard. “U. these results should be interpreted cautiously.59 implies a reduction of close to 5. is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. 2004. and Blackley. But the results from this time series analysis raise serious questions about the possible harmful impacts on public health from the current mix of anti-drug policies.S. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College.S. 1980). It is therefore assumed that deaths associated with drug use are an effective indicator of the public health consequences of U.S. p. drug policy. Enforcement activities are also found to have larger adverse effects on the Black population. TREATMENT LEADS TO DECREASE IN MORTALITY RATES WHILE ENFORCEMENT INCREASES THEM Shepard. However. Policy categories used to measure federal resources devoted to drug control activities include expenditures on interdiction. Applying the estimated coefficients. 34. is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. and local resources. Given the small sample size used for this aggregate study. 226). The data used below represent federal resources and do not include state and local expenditures.4. These results provide evidence in support of hypotheses advanced by Friedman (1998).West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
TREATMENT AND AVOIDING DEATH RATES ARE MOST IMPORTANT
1. since much of drug law enforcement involves the coordination of federal. changes at the state and local level are likely to have effects similar to those at the federal level. Paul R. Higher expenditures on enforcement activities. state. however. Consistent aggregate data prior to 1981 or individual state data that would allow for pooled estimation is not currently available. DEATH STATISTICS ARE THE MOST RELIABLE WHEN MEASURING PUBLIC HEALTH OUTCOMES. 2. a 10 percent reduction in expenditures on enforcement (about 1 billion dollars by the late 1990s) would be associated with a long-run reduction of over 20% in both the number of deaths and the age-adjusted death rate. 34. and Blackley. Drucker (1999) found that the public health consequences of enforcement activities are disproportionately felt in minority populations.000 deaths a year might be avoided with a shift away from enforcement approaches to drug control. Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes. and so the model is estimated for the total population and separately for White and Black populations. Larger samples may allow for integrating additional variables such as drug use into the model or for separating LAW into its domestic and interdiction components and TREAT into its education and treatment components. “U. Consistent with prior studies. There is also evidence that drug enforcement is heavily concentrated in urban areas with large minority populations. The sample size is relatively small and limits the scope of models and number of factors that can be assessed. The long-run elasticities provide a basis for estimating potential benefits from changing the current policy mix away from enforcement and interdiction and towards education and treatment. increased expenditures on treatment are associated with fewer drug-induced deaths in the long run.4.
.” Journal of Drug Issues. It is obvious that estimates of these effects must be repeated over time as additional evidence and larger sample sizes become available. education. Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes. and Drucker (1999) that drug prohibition and related enforcement activities are associated with significant increases in the public health costs of illicit drug use.” Journal of Drug Issues. Paul R. Adding the billion dollars to education and treatment would represent an 18% increase in 1998. EVALUATE AFF IMPACTS FIRST. law enforcement. This would imply that close to 3. 2000) were used as the variables to measure public health outcomes. are found to have a positive association with mortality rates. Thus. 2004. Further research is in the public's interest in order to ensure a rational use of scarce resources in this area of government activity. the underlying estimates suggest that very substantial improvements in public health may be achieved by emphasizing education and treatment over enforcement and interdiction. whether outcomes are measured as the number of deaths or as age-adjusted mortality rates. Nadelmann (1988).
Over the past two decades. “U. and Blackley.” Journal of Drug Issues. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College..S. public health.S. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR DRUGS IS EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE Shepard. overdose deaths and emergency room visits associated with illicit drugs have increased significantly. have evaluated evidence with regard to drug law enforcement and public health outcomes and found that enforcement may be exacerbating the negative public health consequences of illicit drag use as reflected by increases in emergency room visits and overdose deaths. TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS A CRIMINAL ISSUE DIVERTS RESOURCES FROM EDUCATION. and Blackley. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. with total federal.S. 2004. and incarceration and the diversion of resources away from other uses including education and social programs as well as addressing other types of crime. there were over 1. those who favor alternative approaches (e.4. However.S. Current costs include increases in the use of criminal justice system resources for investigations. Shepard. arrests. 2004. including Drucker (1999) and Duncan (1994). the number of individuals incarcerated for drug-related offenses in state prisons has also increased more than tenfold (NRC. Further analysis of the longrun relationship between alternative drug control policies and important outcomes such as the public health may therefore make an important contribution to the current public policy debate. and Blackley.
. The United States has over two million prisoners and one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. 34. Department of Justice [DOJ]. incarceration. emergency room visits. Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes. and economic productivity due to stricter enforcement. 34. Several researchers.4. is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. and interdiction as well as resources devoted to education and treatment. Paul R. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. 2002a). A review of the literature by Mast. it is important to note that the impacts mentioned above would also have to be quantified for a more comprehensive assessment. Paul R. Paul R. there have been dramatic increases in public resources devoted to drug control . Although this paper focuses on the public health effects of alternative drug control policies. and local spending on control of illegal drugs now estimated to exceed $30 billion each year (National Research Council [NRC]. Similarly.S. 3.4.g. One of the goals of U.increases in criminal justice system expenditures for arrests. They cited studies that demonstrate a positive association between increases in resources devoted to enforcement and higher rates of both property and violent crime over time and across geographical areas. Benson. federal spending on enforcement of the drug laws has increased more than tenfold. Since 1980. Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes. state. The economic costs associated with the current "drug war" have increased dramatically and underscore the need for further study of the effectiveness of the current approach and its emphasis on enforcement. 1988) have argued that strict enforcement policies serve to exacerbate the public health problems of illicit drug use by marginalizing the drug user and rendering uncertain the quality and potency of any drugs taken. some researchers (Drucker. AND PUBLIC HEALTH MEANS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON CRIME RATES AND MORE DEATHS. is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE TO REDUCE HEALTH COSTS Shepard. Nadelmann.” Journal of Drug Issues. a majority for possession as opposed to sales or manufacture (DOJ. legal. 1999. and Rasmussen (2000) identified significant unintended consequences from policy actions. The causal relationships underlying these trends are uncertain. In 2001. 2002b). policy is to reduce use and abuse of illegal drugs and thereby lower the associated health costs of sickness and disease. and overdoses.” Journal of Drug Issues. SOCIAL SERVICES. “U.5 million arrests for illegal drugs. In contrast. 2004. 2. 2001). driven in part by enforcement of drug laws by all levels of government (U. Also relevant are the forgone tax revenues from regulated markets as well as unintended adverse effects on crime rates. is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. The public health consequences of our nation's drug control efforts are an important area of research with significant public policy implications. By any measure. interdiction. “U. 2001). Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes. regulated markets for currently illicit drugs or an emphasis on education and treatment over interdiction and prohibition enforcement) believe that the net benefits of different approaches are greater than those for current policy. over the same time period that expenditures on enforcement have escalated.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
PUBLIC HEALTH COSTS LESS THAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs. a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. . “Drug Control. The goal of these restrictions is to make the merchandise as neutral (or unattractive) as possible. method of use. and the case is now with the Supreme Court of that country. it is clearly relevant for the matter at hand. If the root cause of death derives from the illness of addiction.3. Retail outlet location. DRUG ABUSE IS MORE A HEALTH THAN CRIMINAL ISSUE Takahashi.” Canadian Journal of Public Health. also touches on these issues. Human Rights. close down the site.and.” Human Rights Quarterly. 2002. There is no single. At the domestic level. distributors. August 2009. so as to prevent the sharing of infected needles.
. and when alcohol is sold. Drug packaging. . they avoid the risk of being infected or of infecting others by injection. the term signifies measures taken to reduce the harm caused by the abuse of drugs. Advertising and promotion would be prohibited. The right to the highest attainable standard of health is an even more salient issue in drug control than the issue of criminal justice and the death penalty. Canada.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
DRUG ABUSE IS EMPIRICALLY A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE
1. as Drug Control Officer in the Convention Evaluation Section of the International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat. while ignoring the resulting illness. DRUG ABUSE HAS BEEN LEGALLY DETERMINED AS A HEALTH CARE ISSUE IN CANADA Takahashi. Legalization with “Product” Under this model. and they gain access to counselling and consultation that may lead to abstinence and rehabilitation. they receive services and assistance at Insite which reduce the risk of overdose that is a feature of their illness. packaging and retail outlets are controlled. Denial of access to Insite and safe injection . August 2009. the distribution of clean needles to drug addicts usually referred to as needle exchange is one of the main harm reduction measures. as shall be examined.” Human Rights Quarterly. then a law that prevents access to health care services that can prevent death clearly engages the right to life. sued for relief from the federal government? efforts to terminate the exemption and consequently. or receive free of charge. known as Insite. Drugs would be sold in plain packaging with standardized weights. as opposed to measures aimed at eliminating the abuse itself. All of this is health care. clean needles. . was employed until March 2009 at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2. this article has been cited to justify various approaches in drug control often categorized as harm reduction. and retail price of the drug would be regulated. . marketing and method of sale would be specified. . .3. 93. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic.” Broadly speaking. governments took measures to ensure that addicts who received these needles were not prosecuted so that the addicts would not be discouraged from using the service. as Drug Control Officer in the Convention Evaluation Section of the International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat. wholesalers and retailers. product restrictions can be aimed at manufacturers. was employed until March 2009 at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Saul. Prescription drugs and tobacco have restrictions aimed at packaging and labelling. and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues. Human Rights. PACKAGING AND OUTLET CONTROLS DEMONSTRATE SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH Haden. Countries therefore introduced programs whereby drug addicts could exchange dirty needles for. In the late 1980s.6. “Illicit IV Drugs: a Public Health Approach. “Drug Control. Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) states that United States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. packagers. 31. The federal government has appealed this ruling. Saul. governments became aware that HIV was being spread through the sharing of needles amongst drug (mainly heroin) addicts. stating: While users do not use Insite to directly treat their addiction. days and hours of operation would be controlled. Our society uses many "product" restrictions currently. The operators of the sole injection room in Canada. failure to manage the addiction in all of its aspects may lead to death. Mark works for Vancouver Coastal Health. 3. whether from overdose or other illness resulting from unsafe injection practices. which had been established initially as a pilot project under an exemption from federal law prohibiting the possession of illicit drugs. formulation. Though not a ruling on the right to health as such. 31. and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues. internationally agreed upon definition of the term harm reduction. For example. Even in countries where drug abuse or possession is criminalized. . amounts to a condemnation of the consumption that led to addiction in the first place. . The strength.
This option could be expanded considerably. safe injection facilities. the population's health benefits most from being addressed and managed from an inclusive i. Prevention. Restrictions on purchasers could include: age of purchaser. volume rationing. substance abuse is clearly one of our most costly public health problems. Department of Health and Human Services. HIV/AIDS. When the link is made between substance abuse and other headline grabbing problems -. http://www.S. accessed: 7/16/10. counsellor. Joseph is Acting Deputy Administrator of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. TREATING OTHER ILLEGAL DRUGS THE WAY ALCOHOL IS TREATED ALLOWS MORE REGULATION Haden. pregnancy.6. suicide. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS TREATED DRUG ABUSE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE AND BELIEVES IT TO REQUIRE PUBLIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Autry. degree of intoxication of purchaser.gov/asl/testify/t990318c. 2. mental and psychological health falling outside the remit. through to psycho-social approaches including models of counselling and behaviour modification namely Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. crime. Currently our society uses some "customer" restrictions in sales of alcohol. addiction treatment and mental health services cannot be overstated. Drug and alcohol abuse ravage the lives of millions and fuel crime. Transtheoretical Model (cycle of change) & Motivational Interviewing as well as specific harm reduction interventions. 93. consumption rooms. 2009. home use). 2002. These "customers" could then be registered and allowed to purchase a rationed amount. focusing exclusively on these treatment interventions results in other drug use related issues such as sexual health. and Policy. December 16.
. to be used in designated spaces (i.substanceabusepolicy. As with any other public health problem. public health and harm reductionist approach. drugs are dominating the public's concern about the future of children in this country. residency and age. where age and degree of intoxication of purchaser are factors in the sale. DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT ALWAYS FOCUSES ON THE HEALTH ASPECT OF IT Bevan. http://www.com/content/4/1/21 Problem drug use treatment can typically be defined as interventions that directly address or ameliorate the negative effects of problematic drug use and cover a broad spectrum.unintended pregnancy.e. “Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says..” Canadian Journal of Public Health.” Substance Abuse Treatment. school drop-out. As important as the treatment and care is which directly addresses the problem drug use. 1999.hhs. This option is about regulating access to drugs. March 18. social worker) could assess the "customer" on a variety of factors. 3. “Illicit IV Drugs: a Public Health Approach. a health care worker (e. A survey of American adults found 56 percent listed drugs as the top problem facing American children. we must achieve public health solutions. violence. domestic violence. Using this option. disease and premature death. at 24 percent. homelessness. nurse. documented need. limitations in allowed locations for use. accessed: 7/16/10.g. welfare. to assist in bringing regulation to this currently uncontrolled market.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
DRUG TREATMENT FOCUSES ON HEALTH IMPROVEMENT
1. proof of residency with purchase.e.. and would also restrict purchasers.html The importance of our work in substance abuse prevention. from pharmacological interventions such as substitute prescribing and detoxification. proof of "need" in order to purchase.” U. from licenced outlets. needle exchange. Hepatitis screening and vaccination programmes. An active integrated prevention/public health education program integral to this model would also restrict customers. Mark works for Vancouver Coastal Health. “Testimony on Oversight of Agency Efforts to Prevent and Treat Drug Abuse. Crime was second. including degree of addiction. registrations of purchasers. Market Regulation -This model would include all of the "product" restrictions as outlined above. Study after study has shown. and injuries. Gez is on the faculty of Applied Sciences at the University of Sunderland. beyond the alcohol sales model.
“Addiction. with many and perhaps most diseases. including an addict. Increasing the number of physicians who could prescribe these drugs may help to desegregate this disenfranchised population and promote reintegration into mainstream communities. Genetics and Criminal Responsibility. 2006. “Illicit IV Drugs: a Public Health Approach. ADDICTION ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT Morse. The dominant image of people with diseases is that they are the victims of pathological mechanisms who deserve sympathy and help and do not deserve condemnation. Despite the potential contribution of human agency to the cause and maintenance of some diseases. should be punished unless he or she at least deserves such punishment. 2. TREATING ILLEGAL DRUGS AS PRESCRIPTION REDUCES ADDICTION Haden. and that the offender never should be punished more than she deserves. Genetics and Criminal Responsibility. 3. Moreover. 69. The special licence requirement results in some physicians opening specialized methadone clinics with hundreds of patients who. and consequences.
. the sufferer is not responsible for contracting the disease. Mark works for Vancouver Coastal Health. People can.” Canadian Journal of Public Health. congregate in the neighbourhood.” Law and Contemporary Problems. “Addiction. Allow drugs to be available on prescription Physicians could be allowed to prescribe currently illegal drugs for medicinal or maintenance purposes. But hypertension and infections are themselves mechanisms. Currently a special licence is required to prescribe our only "maintenance" drug. the person who in inappropriate circumstances engages in unprotected sexual activity surely risks contracting sexually transmitted diseases. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. And a person who suffers from many diseases can ameliorate the consequences by intentionally adhering to a prescribed medical regimen. Even if good consequences might be achieved by punishing non-responsible addicts or by punishing responsible addicts more than they deserve. no one denies that these are fundamentally diseases.1-2. This account of criminal responsibility is most tightly linked to retributive justifications of punishment. ACTIONS AFTERWARD ARE LESS IN CONTROL Morse. be responsible for initially contracting or risking contracting diseases. and for many diseases there is little or nothing the sufferer can do to help.6. The sufferer cannot terminate all the signs and symptoms of the disease simply by intentionally choosing to cease being hypertensive or infected. Although people sometimes can be complicit in their own diseases. 69. symptoms.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
ADDICTION MAKES ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE A HEALTH ISSUE
1. which hold that punishment is not justified unless the offender morally deserves punishment because the offender was at fault and responsible.” Law and Contemporary Problems. Stephen J. No offender. most of which are inconsistent with the sufferer's responsibility for the features of the illness. The concepts of illness and disease have powerful associations in our culture. does not exercise. such punishment would require very weighty justification in a system that takes desert seriously. the disease model is so powerful that people who are ill are not in general considered responsible for the signs. methadone. A person who is overweight. 2006. 93. such as general deterrence. to the distress of local communities. ADDICTION IS A DISEASE – EVEN IF THERE WERE RESPONSIBILITY IN BECOMING ADDICTED. (19) The account is also consistent with consequential justifications for punishment. Stephen J. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. of course. other than to seek and cooperate with professional help and to wait for the disease to run its course. 2002.1-2. Allowing all doctors to prescribe drugs like heroin and cocaine might dissipate drugabusing communities as this would increase the options available to addicts. It is generally conceded that desert is at least a necessary precondition for punishment in Anglo-American law. and smokes surely is responsible for risking hypertension.
Problem drug use for many is a chronic and relapsing condition. AND THUS ISSUES PERTAINING TO IT SHOULD BE CONCEPTUALIZED AS SUCH Bevan.com/content/4/1/21 With more than 200. Gez is on the faculty of Applied Sciences at the University of Sunderland.” Human Rights Quarterly. THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE AN ISSUE OF USERS' HEALTH AS OPPOSED TO PENALIZING THEM Takahashi. 2009.” Substance Abuse Treatment. . 31. “Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says. . the scarcity of treatment programs and the very nature of drug use guarantee that there will always be people who either cannot or will not stop using drugs.
. was employed until March 2009 at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. In reality. . Human Rights. DRUG ADDICTION IS OFTEN TREATED IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SECTOR. and Policy. “Drug Control.000 problem drug users is contact with structured treatment services in England the public health imperative behind drug treatment is great. for example. August 2009.3.substanceabusepolicy. 2. http://www. Penalizing this population for using sterile syringes amounts to prescribing death as a punishment for illicit drug use. December 16. NGOs have put forward similar arguments.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
DRUG USE IS INEVITABLY A HEALTH ISSUE
1. accessed: 7/16/10. DRUG ABUSE IS INEVITABLE. Human Rights Watch. Prevention. has criticized the United States policy prohibiting the distribution of clean needles to drug addicts: The government penalizing people for attempting to protect themselves from [HIV] is blatant interference with the right to the highest attainable standard of health. as Drug Control Officer in the Convention Evaluation Section of the International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat. where "cure" is often neither a reasonable or appropriate expectation and it can further be argued that in these circumstances problem drug use is no different from any number of chronic and enduring health conditions that are managed in the health care system and therefore should be conceptualised as such. Saul. and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues.
Some organizations have gone so far as to state that there is a fundamental conflict between the prohibition of drugs and the right to health. “Drug Control. we need to focus on changing the way the war on drugs is being fought.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
CRIMINAL JUSTICE DOESN'T SOLVE PUBLIC HEALTH
1. Equally. . The real problems are our emphasis on incarceration. the unfair application of drug laws. including mandatory minimum sentences. It is a shame that many educated and prominent people suggest that the only dangerous thing about drugs is that they are illegal. and UNAIDS stated in a joint publication promoting needle exchange programs that the [p]rotection of human rights is critical for preventing HIV as people are more vulnerable to infection when their economic.” Criminal Justice Ethics.” 2. as Drug Control Officer in the Convention Evaluation Section of the International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat. they use their resources to blast all efforts to eradicate drugs in this country. a punitive approach. Saul.Human Rights Watch argues that the ideology of the war on drug shas trumped both reason and reality .2. and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues. These shortcomings in our drug policy should not become a license for legalization.” Human Rights Quarterly. including the response to HIV . health. UNODC. 17. among people who use drugs [and] stigmatising people who use drugs through criminalising them undermines their human rights. The Beckley Foundation argues that there is an inherent tension between prohibition on the one hand. the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. and health and human rights concerns on the other. Even WHO. RECOGNIZING SHORTCOMINGS IN DRUG LAW SOLVES DRUG ABUSE BEST Rangel. Many critics of the drug war have the knowledge and skills to improve our national drug control policy. CRIMINALIZATION OF DRUG USAGE UNDERMINES PUBLIC HEALTH EFFORTS Takahashi. and violated the human right of injection drug users to take steps to protect their health. “Why Drug Legalization Should Be Opposed. August 2009. Rather. . is a congressman for New York's 15th District. Charles B. . 31.3. Instead of supporting the Drug Czar. Human Rights. which states that the criminalisation of people who use drugs is undermining public health efforts. social or cultural rights are not respected. based overtly on criminal justice measures. and the failure to concentrate on the root causes of drug abuse. was employed until March 2009 at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. .
. 1998 The issue should not be whether or not drugs should be legalized.Similar assessments are made by Canada HIV/AIDS Legal Network. succeeds only in driving underground those people most in need of prevention and care services.
West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH MAINTAINS FEDERALISM
1. Caroline. Congress also did not have the authority to regulate their purely intrastate conduct because the marijuana was both manufactured and distributed solely within California. Specifically.S. Thus. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative: Whatever Happened to Federalism?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. If a patient is accepted.1. section 841 (a)(1). MEDICINAL MARIJUANA IS LEGAL UNDER MANY STATE LAWS AND DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY FEDERAL LAWS Herman. approximately twenty-five cannabis cooperatives have been established in California. as trivial individual instances'" of the class. The court rejected the defendants' argument that distribution of marijuana to seriously ill patients is not within the class of activities that Congress sought to regulate with the CSA. In these cooperatives. The defendants further argued that just as Congress did not have the authority to regulate possession of a firearm in a school zone.C. The court pointed to Congress's detailed findings that intrastate cultivation. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12. the United States filed six separate lawsuits against six independent cannabis dispensaries and individuals involved with the dispensaries. To date. courts have no power to "'excise." The court also stressed that since Lopez was decided. the court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the case because the CSA does not exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. section 846. as the Supreme Court held in Lopez.S.C. (2) defendants have valid defenses to their violation of the law. The court concluded that distribution.C.S. all six cases were reassigned to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as related cases. qualified patients were forced to purchase marijuana. Since the passage of Proposition 215.
. 93. IT HAS BEEN RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT PREVENT DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICINAL MARIJUANA TO SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENTS – IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE Herman. section 856(a)(1). even "if done for the humanitarian purpose of service the legitimate health care needs of seriously ill patients.1. distribution and possession of controlled substances have "a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce. The United States alleged that the defendants violated federal law under the CSA whether or not the defendants' activities were legal under California law. the federal government alleged that the defendants' manufacture and distribution of marijuana violated 21 U. and registered nurses staff the organization during business hours. he receives an identification card that allows him to procure marijuana from the Cooperative. a physician serves as medical director. that class also substantially affects interstate commerce. 2. the Ninth Circuit has held that Congress's enactment of the CSA is permissible under the Commerce Clause. if they could at all. In January of 1998.S. “United States V.C. 2002. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative: Whatever Happened to Federalism?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. The organizers claim that prior to the creation of these dispensaries. First. the United States sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Cooperative from distributing and manufacturing marijuana under 21 U. arguing that even if such activity falls into a different class. 2002." can affect interstate commerce . their use of facilities (the actual locations) for the purpose of manufacture and distribution violated 21 U. Caroline.S. To become a member of a Cooperative.C. which provides federal district courts with jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the Act. The court placed the defendants' arguments into three categories: (1) defendants have not violated federal law. The court decided that there is nothing about the nature of medical marijuana that limits it to intrastate cultivation or distribution. “United States V. patients are required to provide a written statement from a treating physician agreeing to marijuana therapy. several individuals have created non-profit "medical cannabis dispensaries" or "cooperatives" to provide marijuana for seriously ill patients upon a physician's recommendation. and the individual defendants' conspiracy to violate the CSA violated 21 U. on the black market. The court asserted that when Congress declares that an entire class of activities affects commerce. and (3) equitable principles preclude injunctive relief. section 882(a). The Cooperative argued that the court should dismiss the federal government's claims because 21 U. section 841(a) exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. paying excessive prices for questionable quality marijuana. more than a year after California voters passed Proposition 215. 93. and the patient then must go through a screening interview.
as pointed out by Justice Stevens in his concurrence. nor prohibited by it to the States. according to the majority. are reserved to the States respectively. Police powers. exceeds Congress's enumerated power under the Commerce Clause. exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power. “United States V. because the Court in Oakland failed to address this crucial issue. at the very least. Caroline. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative: Whatever Happened to Federalism?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology." Thus. First. is. the medical marijuana issue in this case involves a situation in which a state has chosen to "serve as a laboratory" in the trial of a "novel social and economic experiment. federalism clearly plays a crucial role in the strained relationship between California's Proposition 215 (and similar laws in eight other states) and the GSA. had the Court examined the CSA under the heightened scrutiny of Lopez and Morrison. however. Caroline. possession. EMPIRICAL CASES THAT RULE IN FAVOR OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER ARE WRONG
Herman.1. its decision should have been radically different because a heightened review of the CSA under Lopez and Morrison reveals that the Act's regulation of wholly intrastate cultivation. The "first principles" of federalism command the Court to intervene in cases such as Oakland in which tension exists between state and federal law and in which Congress seeks to regulate wholly intrastate activities under its Commerce Clause power. the decision is inconsistent with the Rehnquist Court's reinvigorated loyalty to federalism and to reining in Congress's commerce power. 2002. 2002. medical marijuana falls into two categories traditionally left to the state: health care and criminal law enforcement. and morals of citizens. including the protection of public health. ISSUES OF PUBLIC HEALTH SUCH AS MEDICINAL MARIJUANA OUGHT TO BE TREATED AS AN ISSUE OF FEDERALISM AND DELEGATED TO THE STATES Herman. or to the people. the Tenth Amendment proclaims that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Lastly. Congress claimed that it intended to allow the states to freely exercise their independent authority over public health." One of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution is the power to "regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations. Justice Thomas skirts the federalism issue in the Oakland decision by merely stating that the Court is not deciding any constitutional issues in this opinion. 2002. In enacting the CSA. Justice Thomas's opinion in Oakland ignores a crucial issue that is necessary to resolve this case: does Congress's attempt to regulate the wholly intrastate activity of distribution of marijuana for medical purposes under the CSA exceed the power afforded to Congress by the Commerce Clause? In Oakland. 2. despite its lack of a "police power. the Court held that the language and the structure of the CSA abrogate the discretion of federal courts to balance potential harms in issuing injunctions and eliminate the medical necessity defense. lies beyond the reach of both the federal courts and the states. safety.1. the Constitution declares the federal government to be one of enumerated powers. Had the Court addressed this issue. and among the several states. the paramount principles of federalism impose a duty on the federal courts.1.
.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS PUBLIC HEALTH IS A STATE ISSUE
1. and with the Indian Tribes. The next logical and necessary question the Court should have addressed is whether such a broad statute. as it is applied to conduct related to the medical use of marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative: Whatever Happened to Federalism?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. “United States V. sanctioned by California law. 93." Congress has passed federal criminal laws. 3. and use of medical marijuana. possession and use of state sanctioned medical marijuana exceeds Congress's commerce power. relying on its power under the Commerce Clause to do so. The Supreme Court's decision in Oakland is incomplete in that it ignores the critical underlying issue that is necessary to resolve this case: whether the CSA's regulation of wholly intrastate cultivation. EMPIRICAL CASES THAT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FAILED TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES WITHIN THE CASE Herman. it should have found that the CSA. Furthermore. 93. to settle and minimize the conflict between federal and state law at issue in Oakland. “United States V. highly constitutionally suspect. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative: Whatever Happened to Federalism?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 93. including the Supreme Court. which. including the CSA. Second. Nevertheless." known generally as the commerce power. are left to the states. However. In order to avoid an all-powerful central government and to ensure state sovereignty. because of these two considerations. Furthermore. Caroline.
This indicates that there are specific drugs being spoken about in a legal or illegal context. Habit forming stimulant or narcotic substance (such as alcohol. VALUE: JUSTICE Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. are legal in most countries because they generate substantial employment or government revenue through taxes. Thereafter any attempt to discontinue their use results in specific reactions (called withdrawal symptoms) such as sweating. may have nothing to do with its potential for addiction or harm: alcohol and nicotine.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
I negate the resolution Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health. Inc. 2006.” Law and Contemporary Problems. or a derivative of cocoa or poppy) which produces a state of arousal. both addictive and harmful. Suffering from a disease simpliciter. The above definition indicates which drugs are outlawed. “Addiction. Stephen J. Although all honest people will admit that biological and environmental variables beyond the person's rational control can cause an agent to be the type of person who is predisposed to commit crimes or can put the agent in the kind of environment that predisposes people to criminal activity. including the addict. cannabis.1-2. CONTENTION ONE: ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE IS A CRIMINAL ISSUE REGARDLESS OF CAUSE OR RESULT OF ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE. agency entails moral and legal responsibility that warrants blame and punishment. although diseases and other causes may negate action or produce an excusing condition. Merriam-Webster. Also called illegal drug where its production and/or use is prohibited. http://www. 69. and should be considered when evaluating today’s debate..
. since justice is delegated based on existing laws.com “The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. such as gross irrationality. Most mental and physical diseases--even severe disorders--suffered by people who violate the criminal law do not have these exculpating effects because they do not sufficiently affect rational agency concerning criminal activity. Continued or excessive use (called drug abuse or substance abuse) of such substances causes addiction or dependence.” CRITERION: UPHOLDING THE LAW Upholding laws set in place is the only way to achieve the value of justice. and overarching reasons why this is so. does not itself mean that the defendant did not act or that an excusing condition obtained. FROM BUSINESS DICTIONARY. (15) Unless either the person does not act or an excusing condition is present. the law ultimately views the criminal wrongdoer as an agent and not simply as a passive victim who manifests pathological mechanisms. not of criminal justice. vomiting. such as schizophrenia. Criminal law's concept of the person. (16) Even if addiction is properly characterized as an illness. and tremors which cease when the use is resumed. Genetics and Criminal Responsibility. or euphoria. Whether a substance is legal or illegal. nicotine. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS ILLEGAL DRUGS. most addicts are nonetheless capable of being guided by good reasons. (17) Sick people who behave immorally or who violate the criminal law are almost always responsible agents. 2006. including the incentives law can provide. is the antithesis of the medical model's mechanistic concept. THERE IS STILL AN OBLIGATION TO THE LAW Morse. however. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. This provides a clear outline based on the text of the law and whether or not that action upholds the law or does not. contentment.m-w. This is the most objective standard by which to evaluate this debate because it is easy to tell if decidedly illegal drug abuse falls outside and is contrary to current laws.
nida.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
CONTENTION TWO: TREATING ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE AS A CRIMINAL ISSUE SOLVES HEALTH CONCERNS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ALLOWS DRUG ABUSERS TO GET THE HELP AND TREATMENT THEY NEED National Institute of Drug Abuse. accessed 7/10/10 http://www. Increasing participation in drug abuse treatment can decrease the spread of these diseases by reducing risky behaviors. It is a public health — and safety — issue that cannot go unheeded.
. The prevalence of AIDS is estimated to be approximately five times higher among incarcerated individuals than in the general population.html Substance abusing individuals in the criminal justice system have a host of complicated health problems.” National Institutes of Health. individuals in the criminal justice system represent a significant proportion of all cases of hepatitis B and C infection and tuberculosis in the United States.nih. “Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety. such as sharing injection equipment and having unprotected sex.gov/tib/drugs_crime. In addition. March 2009. Involvement in the criminal justice system provides an opportunity to diagnose and treat these health problems. which include infectious diseases.
“U. and addiction associated with illegal drugs should be lower." Kleiman (1992. 3. if many potential users find participation too risky or are dissuaded by high prices. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. CERTAIN DRUGS SUCH AS HEROIN OR COCAINE NEED TO MAINTAIN THEIR CRIMINAL STATUS SINCE ADDICTION IS MORE LIKELY Shepard. 2009. CHANGING THE LEGAL STATUS OF DRUGS DOES NOT CHANGE USE PATTERNS. 307) opposed a legal.is likely to give rise to self-destructive habits for an unacceptably large proportion of users. perhaps a great deal. including Wilson (1990) and Kleiman (1992). and Blackley."
. By making drugs legal there would be a large increase in illegal drug use (as there has been in illegal gambling). then there should be less drug abuse and fewer addicts.. “Drug Control. MEANING IT SHOULD BE A CRIMINAL ISSUE Institute For Behavior and Health. The debate in international drug control circles is polarized and acrimonious and shows little sign of abating. "Some. Several scholars. was employed until March 2009 at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 31.” Journal of Drug Issues. disease. then the outcome should be reduced drug use. 2004. and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health: By No Means Straightforward Issues.on the public health could be positive or negative. have greater effects on the supply side. Paul R. If law enforcement approaches are successful in reducing supply and deterring demand through stiffer penalties and greater risk of arrest. interdiction . abuse. with an uncertain effect on drug prices. that is not its objective. as Drug Control Officer in the Convention Evaluation Section of the International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat.ibhinc. The United States in particular is vehemently opposed to harm reduction and regularly makes statements at the CND that such practices assist people in using or abusing drugs and contribute to undermining global counter drug efforts. outcomes such as the use.”Advocates of harm reduction see things very differently. regulated market for cocaine because it ". http://www. thereby reducing the related public health costs. of the gain would be offset by the great increase in the number of addicts.3. then prices should increase. In theory. the effects of law enforcement approaches arrests. These outcomes should also decline with reductions in the size of the market. With successful deterrence and interdiction along with higher prices. have opposed a legal. The concept of harm reduction and the specific measures described above remain controversial. p.” March 24. 57) argued that while a legalized market might provide some benefits in the form of reduced crime. To those who are against needle exchange programs and injection rooms. 2. Harm reduction does nothing to address the abuse of the drugs itself.4.” Human Rights Quarterly. If law enforcement approaches. Human Rights. as commonly believed. Saul. Thus.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE EXTENSIONS
PUBLIC HEALTH DOESN'T CHANGE DRUG USE PATTERNS
1. regulated market for heroin or cocaine because of expected increases in drug addiction and the associated social costs. is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. TREATING DRUG ABUSE AS A HEALTH ISSUE DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS ABUSE ITSELF Takahashi. 34. p. “What's Wrong with Legalizing Illegal Drugs. harm reduction measures are pragmatic tools that take into account the reality of drug abuse and try at least to help drug addicts protect themselves from communicable diseases or overdose.pdf The analogy to legal gambling is instructive. Wilson (1990.org/pdfs/WhatsWrongwithLegalizingIllegalDrugs32409. to them. August 2009. these measures amount to condoning and facilitating drug abuse and to discarding the goal of eradicating drug abuse altogether. incarceration. Sickness.. and increased mortality are additional consequences of drug addiction. The same would be true for the legal availability of formerly illegal drugs.S. Law enforcement approaches to the nation's drug policy may influence public health in several ways. focuses on national drug abuse policies that emphasize prevention and investment in better treatment approaches. Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes. Today no one talks about curbing illegal gambling as a goal of legal gambling because the data is clear: legal gambling builds the business of illegal gambling. The illegal drug suppliers would thrive by selling more potent products outside of the taxation and restrictions that all governments would place on a regulated and legal drug supply.
is Senior Economist in Latin America & the Caribbean Region. 1. the growth of the crack cocaine market was accompanied by an increased diffusion of guns among juveniles. CONSUMPTION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS INCREASES GUN CRIMES BECAUSE OF THE DANGEROUS NATURE OF THE MARKET Fajnzylber. the growth of the crack cocaine market was accompanied by an increased diffusion of guns among juveniles. is is Senior Economist in the World Bank's Development Economics Research Group. Daniel. is lead economist in the research department of the World Bank. Because of its low price.and non-drug-related lethal violence among youth. and the arrest rate on drug charges among nonwhite juveniles all more than doubled between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s.1.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
DRUG ABUSE LEADS TO CRIME
1. Because of its low price. For instance. in turn.” Economia. and Loayza. is Senior Economist in Latin America & the Caribbean Region. in turn. Blumstein argues. Because most drug dealers carry guns for self-protection and because dispute resolution in the illegal drug market is often violent. Because most drug dealers carry guns for self-protection and because dispute resolution in the illegal drug market is often violent. Blumstein shows that the homicide rate among youth aged eighteen and under. Blumstein attributes these worrisome trends to changes in the illegal drug market that were brought about by the introduction of crack cocaine. The same period saw no growth in the homicide rate among adults aged twenty-four and older and no growth in either the drugrelated arrest rate for white juveniles or the number of juvenile homicides not involving guns. crack cocaine attracted a larger number of buyers and led to an increase in the number of transactions. who are usually recruited among inner-city juveniles because of their lower opportunity costs and because of the relatively lenient punishments they face when caught.” Economia. Blumstein shows that the homicide rate among youth aged eighteen and under. Pablo. is is Senior Economist in the World Bank's Development Economics Research Group. is lead economist in the research department of the World Bank. For instance. led to a greater incidence of both drug. 1. led to a greater incidence of both drug. Lederman. Norman. and Loayza. the number of homicides committed by juveniles with guns. led to a considerable increase in the number of drug sellers. who are usually recruited among inner-city juveniles because of their lower opportunity costs and because of the relatively lenient punishments they face when caught. Norman.
. Two issues that have recently received special attention from economists and other social scientists are the relation between crime and drugs and the explanation of youth crime participation. Pablo. “Crime and Victimization: An Economic Perspective. The same period saw no growth in the homicide rate among adults aged twenty-four and older and no growth in either the drugrelated arrest rate for white juveniles or the number of juvenile homicides not involving guns.and non-drug-related lethal violence among youth. 2000.1. the number of homicides committed by juveniles with guns. Blumstein argues. 2000. 2. This. Daniel. This. Blumstein attributes these worrisome trends to changes in the illegal drug market that were brought about by the introduction of crack cocaine. Two issues that have recently received special attention from economists and other social scientists are the relation between crime and drugs and the explanation of youth crime participation. DRUG ABUSE IS LINKED TO OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY Fajnzylber. This. This. led to a considerable increase in the number of drug sellers. “Crime and Victimization: An Economic Perspective. and the arrest rate on drug charges among nonwhite juveniles all more than doubled between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s. crack cocaine attracted a larger number of buyers and led to an increase in the number of transactions. Lederman.
West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
DRUG ABUSE SHOULD BE TREATED BOTH AS HEALTH AND CRIMINAL
1. DRUG EPIDEMIC WAS OVERSTATED WHICH MADE DRUG ABUSE A HEALTH AND CRIMINAL ISSUE Yuill. then octupling.000 in 1969 to 315.” Dan Baum concluded that drugs were such a tiny health problem as to be “statistically insignificant. which were collated by a compilation of reports by local police departments. It wasn't just that this policy was a way to reduce crime. “What's Wrong with Legalizing Illegal Drugs. this “rise” came about because the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs decided to reinterpret the 1969 data. focuses on national drug abuse policies that emphasize prevention and investment in better treatment approaches. 21.000 in 1971. Nixon was obviously affected by the story of the death of twelve-year-old Walter by heroin use.2. and most of it was finally being spent more wisely on prevention and treatment.” If the major concern was to lower crime rates.org/pdfs/WhatsWrongwithLegalizingIllegalDrugs32409. Any realistic proposal for legalization would be so frightening and so obviously destructive that it would be a political non-starter.2. For example The Economist's headline story. Edward J. Reaganite “just say no” or a simple law-and-order crackdown. “Another Take on the Nixon Presidency: The First Therapeutic President?” Journal of Policy History. “the most fruitful and productive in federal history” in establishing and expanding drug-treatment services. however. Leif Rosenberger. Kevin is Senior Lecturer in American Studies at the University of Sunderland. Kevin is Senior Lecturer in American Studies at the University of Sunderland. the number of known addicts. http://www. . Epstein noted the way the administration calculated the total number of heroin addicts. Nixon increased expenditures most of all in prevention.” Nixon's drug “czar. A critic of Reagan's war on drugs. remembered about his boss: “It's clear that he had very strong feelings about it. proposals to legalize drugs have suffered from the same pitfall into which the current series of articles in The Economist finds itself. Nixon declared somewhat dramatically in March 1970 that “the scourge of Narcotics has swept the younger generation like an epidemic. express a genuine horror at the destructive capacity of drugs. Nixon's initial interest in drugs as an issue seemed to be in its ability to galvanize Americans into an anti-drugs crusade. “Prohibition has failed” is followed by page after page of horror stories about drug trafficking.” However. While a real problem for many families and individuals. The period from 1971 to 1975 was.” March 24. . Instead of simply adding together all the reported addicts.” Nixon reorganized the federal anti-drugs effort to emphasize treatment as an alternative to prison.000 in 1970 to 559. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RULE WHICH DIRECTION—HEALTH OR CRIMINAL—DRUGS SHOULD BE TREATED Institute For Behavior and Health. 2. Virtually the entire content is devoted to the costs of keeping drugs illegal. or so limited that it would be irrelevant to the goal of eliminating illegal drug trafficking. Nixon clearly hyped the problem. 21. Some of his notations in the voluminous news reports sent to him each day indicate the issues that moved the him. hardly the actions of someone solely concerned with his law-and-order image. as Karl J. He felt that drug use really eroded the fabric of society. 3. I felt that it wasn't just for political purposes that he wanted to do this. Upon taking office. . the bureau estimated those missed by local police departments by first quadrupling. The reason a fleshed-out proposal to legalize all drugs is not to be found in this or any other publication is that it cannot be done. Another Take on the Nixon Presidency: The First Therapeutic President? Journal of Policy History. Why was there this manufactured epidemic Katherine Beckett identifies the motive behind Nixon declared War on Drugs as the need to fulfill the anti-crime agenda. In December 1969. All of the legalization proposals neglect to deliver a comprehensive plan for what to legalize (all drugs? all doses? all routes of administration?). Nixon attacked the scourge of drugs.ibhinc. As Epstein noted: “Evidence emerged that by 1971 there was actually a reduction in addicts. noted: “In all the Nixon administration devoted $3bn to anti-drug activities. a therapeutic approach was at least an imaginative method. Jaffe. not until 1971 did the drugs issue evolve into a therapeutic point of contact within the ghettoes. The legalization devil is in the never-described details. The federal government had little power to tackle crime except in a few areas. 2009. particularly in poor areas. Other books go even further in praising the Nixon administration's efforts. from 68.
. rivaling the infamous message of crime figures. Besteman has noted. of which narcotics control was one.”pointing out that more people choked to death on food or died falling down the stairs in the United States each year than succumbed to illegal drugs. 2009.pdf In the past. Nixon did. The war on drugs was thus a last-ditch attempt to reduce the crime rates to which the administration itself had drawn so much attention. WAR ON DRUGS IS A RESULT OF A COMBINATION OF BOTH CRIMINAL AND HEALTH CONCERNS Yuill. Nixon scrawled “Moynihan—note” and later “terrible.” Jerome H. 2009. Rather than a straightforward. Figures released showed an alarming rise in the number of heroin addicts.
“Why Drug Legalization Should Be Opposed. some serious problems became associated with this policy. 2.
. that the costs are a consequence of drug prohibition. British doctors were freely allowed to prescribe drugs to addicts for medicinal purposes. 1998. every year since 2005 more Americans have started using these drugs without having their own valid prescription than have begun using marijuana.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
DRUGS SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED
1. The United States cannot afford such experiments when the data shows that drug legalization policies are failing in other countries. While I agree that some drugs might be beneficial for medicinal purposes. With any legalization of drugs. focuses on national drug abuse policies that emphasize prevention and investment in better treatment approaches. they would only intensify. If we legalize. Due to the lack of rigorous controls.ibhinc. 2009. is a congressman for New York's 15th District. “Why Drug Legalization Should Be Opposed. 1998 Drug legalization is not as simple as opening a chain of friendly neighborhood "drug" stores. Doctors supplied drugs to non-addicts.2.” March 24. The argument about the economic costs associated with the drug war is a selfish argument that coincides with the short-sighted planning that we have been using with other social policies. DRUG LEGALIZATION WILL COST MORE IN THE LONG RUN Rangel.” Criminal Justice Ethics. This experience shows that it is the use of drugs that creates most of the costs of the drug problem and not as The Economist and other critics of restrictive drug policies would have us believe. KEEP THEM ILLEGAL Institute For Behavior and Health. related problems would not go away.org/pdfs/WhatsWrongwithLegalizingIllegalDrugs32409. 17.” Criminal Justice Ethics. including illegal drug trafficking. Until 1968. we will be paying much more than the $30 billion per year we now spend on direct health care costs associated with illegal drug use. and addicts supplied legally obtained drugs to the general population resulting in an increased rate of addiction. http://www. is a congressman for New York's 15th District. this value should not be exploited to suggest that drugs should be legalized. Within the rapidly growing prescription drug problem there is little or no illegal trafficking and yet the health consequences are tragic.2. 17. There is plenty of evidence to show that drug legalization has not worked in other countries that have tried it. Additionally. Charles B. Great Britain's experience with prescription heroin should provide a warning. USING DRUGS AS A MEANS OF HEALTH LEADS TO MORE DEATHS. LEGALIZATION LEADS TO THE SAME ILLEGAL USE WITH MORE ACCESS Rangel. Charles B.pdf The canary in the coal mine for drug legalization is found in the current explosive growth of the abuse of prescribed opiates. 3. In the US deaths from prescription opiates now exceed the deaths from heroin and cocaine combined. Drug legalization threatens to undermine our society. “What's Wrong with Legalizing Illegal Drugs.
“Illicit IV Drugs: a Public Health Approach. overdoses. 1910-45.” Journal of Drug Issues. The most common supply-control argument focuses on the impact of restrictive legislation. Since drug use is commonly associated with serious health consequences. Penalties under this option are: discharges. “U. “Did Drug Prohibition Work?: Reflections on the End of the First Cocaine Experience in the United States. fewer robberies or assaults by addicts needing money for drugs).g. whereas some simply acknowledge the confusion over whether disappearing supplies were a "cause or consequence of the decline in interest" (Grinspoon and Bakalar 1976:47). and on the ability of law enforcement to marginalize distribution networks (to "drive them underground") and. may have effectively cut off supplies to the United States and precipitated a decline in consumption. Depenalization While existing laws are maintained. including the involvement of law enforcement. Mark works for Vancouver Coastal Health. and "parking ticket" status for possession of small amounts of drugs for personal consumption. The latter has scarcely been considered in the existing literature. The former refers to the suggestion that disruptive events (World War I.
. Joseph is Associate Professor of History at the University of Floriday. this report briefly considers two other hypothesized causes for a reduction in cocaine's availability-the disruption of supply and the diversion of supply. Paul R.6. REDUCTION OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES MAINTAINS ALL THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC HEALTH WHILE KEEPING BENEFITS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Haden.. including prohibition. The term cost here is meant to suggest both price and availability. increased productivity in the workplace. 28. LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON COCAINE EFFECTIVELY REDUCED USE Spillane. Historical accounts attribute the declining-use trend to either a reduction in user demand or increased difficulty in obtaining cocaine. and the relative ease or difficulty in locating sources of supply. for possession of drugs. 34.” Journal of Drug Issues. like driving while intoxicated or violence. addictions. 2. and a better quality of life throughout society because of lower levels of drug use. and Blackley. does not remove personal responsibility for an individual's behaviour. Reduction of criminal charges. and emergency room visits. The latter incorporates many aspects of cocaine use. Drug Control Policies: Federal Spending on Law Enforcement versus Treatment in Public Health Outcomes. diversion to treatment instead of jail for significant charges (possession of large amounts and trafficking). is a Professor in the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College. 2004. thereby. 1998. Other possible benefits include reduced crime (e. is the assumption that they offer relatively higher net benefits to society compared to other policies. 3. increase the cost of using cocaine.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES TO ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE SOLVE ANY CONCERNS PUBLIC HEALTH HAS Shepard. for example). 93. Edward is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at LeMoyne College.4. the penalties for possession could be significantly reduced.2. In addition to the role of the criminal law and law enforcement.” Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2002.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOLVES PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS
1. the benefits of successful drug control policies should include reduced health costs such as fewer illnesses. Implicit in the emphasis upon strict law enforcement approaches. but concerns the possibility that legal cocaine production may have sought out less-regulated markets outside the United States.
This would be true even if craving and compulsive seeking and using drugs were the inevitable. Genetically induced pathology may be a prime source of a craving. at the extreme its necessary behavioral signs are virtually all reward-sensitive or reason-responsive. even according to the most extravagantly narrow definition of action. Genetics and Criminal Responsibility. “Addiction.
. a person who acts for reasons. but our moral and legal practices do not treat everyone or no one as responsible.” Law and Contemporary Problems. 69. An addict threatened with instant death for seeking and using will not seek and use unless she already wishes to die at that moment or does not care if she does. “Addiction.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
ADDICTION IS NO EXCUSE
1. “Addiction. It can be inferred from the addict's report about his or her own thoughts and feelings and from the negative consequences of addiction-related actions that the addict is driven by an overwhelming or overpowering desire termed "craving" and that drug seeking and using are "compulsive. and many cease craving after they quit. Even if addiction is properly and most usefully characterized as a disease. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania.” Law and Contemporary Problems.1-2. and compulsive action to satisfy the craving may produce harmful consequences. The core definition of addiction entails this. Addiction is a condition that is eliminated by large numbers of craving sufferers simply by intentionally ceasing to seek and use. and not simply as a biophysical mechanism. and she surely acts intentionally. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. The question. but the addict potentially may be held responsible for addiction-associated actions such as possession. Genetics and Criminal Responsibility.1-2. use. Finally. And when she seeks and uses. (9) 2. is whether addicts should be excused for their addiction-related actions. or psychological states associated with addiction. not mechanisms. then many philosophers claim that "ultimate" responsibility is impossible from the start. as a thoroughly physicalist. The agent is not an addict unless the person seeks and uses the drug. If one wants to excuse addicts because they are genetically determined or determined for any other reason to be addicts. It continues by addressing the two primary theoretical candidates for why actions motivated by cravings and compulsions might be excused--the internal compulsion and irrationality theories. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. 2006. Genetics and Criminal Responsibility. (24) There seems no resolution to this debate in sight. The alleged incompatibility of determinism and responsibility is foundational. physiological. it turns to society's responsibility for addiction-related behaviors and whether such responsibility negates or lessens individual responsibility." But the environment and expectations play a weighty role in the addict's experience of craving and use. plausible "compatibilist" theories suggest that responsibility is possible in a deterministic universe. 69. The criminal actions of addicts are in fact actions. 2006. DRUG ADDICTION IS A LEARNED BEHAVIOR AND SHOULD BE REINFORCED PUNITIVELY Morse.1-2. 3. mechanistic outcome of a single-gene defect. She is not legally unconscious. Determinism cannot be guiding our practices. is how to assess the responsibility of an agent acting intentionally and unlawfully. naturalist worldview holds. An agent will not be held responsible for anatomical. but apparently compulsively in response to cravings. ADDICTION ITSELF SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME. If human beings are fully subject to the causal laws of the universe. then. 69. 2006. she acts. and discovery of biological or psychosocial causes does not per se negate agency and create an excusing condition. but activity to satisfy the craving for drugs is nonetheless action. This part begins an answer with consideration of those features of addiction-related behavior--craving and compulsion--that are most relevant to an assessment of the criminal law's excusing conditions of lack of rationality and legal compulsion. if the universe is deterministic. The question. the addict is able to quit because she finally has sufficient reason to do so. therefore. (23) On the other hand. Stephen J. RESPONSIBILITY IS ZERO SUM Morse. Responsibility is possible or it is not. Thus. one is committed to negating the possibility of responsibility for anything. In many cases. There is no partial or selective determinism. All actions have biological and nonbiological causes. Stephen J. and many addicts "age out" of addiction. tout court.” Law and Contemporary Problems. the addict must be evaluated as an acting agent. or other crimes motivated by the desire to obtain and use drugs. Determinism is not a continuum concept that applies to various individuals in various degrees. even if they may also be properly characterized as signs of disease or brain pathology. CRIMES ASSOCIATED WITH IT SHOULD BE Morse. Stephen J.
and to compel a woman to submit to a caesarian section. "By depriving the fetus of oxygen. 2002. INCARCERATION AS AN ACT OF EARLY INTERVENTION GREATLY REDUCES RISK Fortney. states utilize their police power to promote the public welfare and to prevent citizens from harming one another. the infants experience acute withdrawal from the drug. and smaller head circumferences as compared to drug-free babies. This withdrawal persists in a sub-acute form for four to six months after birth. 17. 2002. Malformations of urogenital.
. The most common reason given is to protect the unborn child of the addicted mother. In noting that the state may guard the general interest in the youth's well being. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TWO STATUTES THAT GIVES IT THE RIGHT TO FORCIBLY INTERVENE Fortney.” Journal of Law and Health.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE SHOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
1. A 1992 study estimated that the direct costs related to prenatal drug exposure were $387 million. Parens patriae is an ancient doctrine that provides states with limited paternalistic power to protect individuals who lack capacity to act in their own interest." Cocaine-addicted women experience complications during labor and delivery and deliver infants pre-term (less than 37 weeks gestation). these infants need intensive medical care estimated to cost approximately $100. 17. Prosecutors and others have articulated a number of reasons that justify government intervention to curb prenatal drug use. Susan. Speaking of the evils that impede the "healthy. In addition to parens patriae. 3. "Neurological problems caused by cocaine can permanently affect motor skills. reflexes and coordination. After birth.1. shorter body lengths. 17. Physicians consider these babies to be medically at risk. These figures do not reflect the costs of the long-term effects of prenatal drug exposure." Because cocaine freely crosses the placental barrier to the fetus and cannot re-circulate back across the placental barrier into the mother's bloodstream. “A Jurisprudential Analysis of Government Intervention and Prenatal Drug Abuse.1. early intervention such as commitment or incarceration might also protect the mother. In Prince v. An evaluation of government intervention to curb prenatal drug use requires a basic understanding of the effects of drug use by pregnant women. to transfer custody of a child from a parent to the state. PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE HAS DEVASTATING AFFECTS ON FETUSES AND NEWBORNS THAT LAST THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR LIVES Fortney. cocaine use threatens fetal development. 2. well rounded growth of young people" the United States Supreme Court in Prince stated that legislation appropriately designed to reach such evils is within the state's police power. cardiac and central nervous systems can also result from gestational cocaine abuse.” Journal of Law and Health. to order treatment for a viable fetus in utero. Presumably. For example.000 per infant.” Journal of Law and Health. parens patriae authority gives the state the power to enact child abuse laws. Massachusetts the United States Supreme Court recognized that the state's parens patriae authority empowers the state to regulate the family in the public interest.1. the United States Supreme Court explained that the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in situations affecting the child's welfare. Given the maternal-fetal link. the fetus may become much more severely addicted than the mother. 2002. These babies are born with lower birth weights. drugs such as cocaine directly and indirectly affect the fetus from conception to birth. “A Jurisprudential Analysis of Government Intervention and Prenatal Drug Abuse. “A Jurisprudential Analysis of Government Intervention and Prenatal Drug Abuse. Susan. As a result of these complications. The state has this authority notwithstanding the parents' claim to control the child. Susan.
opponents of prosecutions have also asserted equal protection arguments because pregnant women are singled out for prosecution. In contrast to these decisions. “A Jurisprudential Analysis of Government Intervention and Prenatal Drug Abuse. “Punishment. 17. Other prosecutions have based cases on laws prohibiting the possession of drugs and the delivery of drugs to minors. By July 1992 at least 167 women in twenty-six states had been arrested and charged criminally because of their use of drugs during pregnancy or because of some other prenatal risk. law enforcement officials. Arguably. In several states without such laws. Congress. 17. who was convicted of violating the Florida statute prohibiting delivery of drugs to minors. Susan.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE IS HEINOUS
1. Many cases were eventually dismissed because the courts have been "unwilling to stretch criminal child endangerment and child support statutes beyond their most obvious purposes--to protect only already born children .1." The Supreme Courts of Kentucky. In allowing these prosecutions.1. In reaching this conclusion. twenty-one cases had been challenged or appealed. Furthermore.1. prosecutors have used existing drug-trafficking laws to file criminal charges against women who use cocaine or other controlled substances during pregnancy. and legislatures in the United States have acted on these sentiments. and all of these were dismissed or overturned. 1994. Iris Marion. even though white women also use illegal drugs. The controversy that has been boiling about this punishment approach to policy for pregnant addicts appears in some of the appeals of these convictions. the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that South Carolina's child abuse statute protects a viable fetus as a child. Some judges have sentenced pregnant addicts convicted of crimes like theft or shopliffing to much heavier sentences than they would have otherwise. 6. the court interpreted the term "child" to include a viable fetus. Susan. courts are applying to fetuses the state laws intended to protect children. Between 1985 and 1998 at least 240 women in the United States have been prosecuted for using illegal drugs while pregnant. Generally prosecutors brought cases under existing child abuse and child endangerment laws. judges. PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE IS CHILD ABUSE Fortney.. In the absence of clear legislative intent. Punitive responses to the problem of drug-exposed infants have significant support among policymakers. TREATING PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IS POLITICALLY POPULAR Young. Such convictions based on existing laws have been challenged on a number of grounds. These prosecutions appear to violate the due process requirements of notice and fair warning because they require a novel construction of the law. Prosecutors have attacked maternal substance abuse using different approaches. the mothers did not have the requisite notice that their drug use would later be treated as a violation of the drug distribution statutes that are intended to apply to the sale of illegal drugs. 2002. A number of these women have been found guilty and sentenced to as many as ten years in prison. The two women who were convicted challenged the court's interpretation seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. Many prosecutors. Nevada and Ohio have held that a mother cannot be convicted of child abuse or child endangerment for using drugs while pregnant. not the mere use of illegal drugs. at least eight states now include drug exposure in utero in their definition of child abuse and neglect.S. 20.” Journal of Law and Health. The majority of these cases have involved women of color. Punitive legislation regarding pregnant addicts has been considered in more than thirty states and by the U. One conviction that received national attention was the case of Jennifer Johnson. this amounts to an improper extension of the law. 2. “A Jurisprudential Analysis of Government Intervention and Prenatal Drug Abuse. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.. and the general public.” Journal of Law and Health.
. Empowerment: Three Approaches to Policy for Pregnant Addicts. the court concluded that its interpretation of the word "person" to include a fetus was consistent with the legislature's intended purpose in enacting the child abuse statute. Although the testimony of legal and medical experts appears to have succeeded in preventing the passage of congressional legislation. 2002.” Feminist Studies. Treatment. As of November 1992. PRENATAL DRUG ABUSE IS DELIVERY OF DRUGS TO MINORS Fortney. Furthermore.
In this respect. then. Loretta J. when drug use was concentrated in a narrowly defined sector of the public. One of the reasons that judges in many western nations have tended to impose lenient sentences on persons convicted of possessing small amounts of "soft" drugs. and Stalans. Another reason for wanting to explore this issue is that judges themselves frequently attempt to reconcile their sentencing practices with the views of the public (or what judges perceive the views of the public to be). such as heroin. The perception that white collar crimes are relatively benign is part of the mythology of crime and criminal justice. to understand public perceptions of the relative harm associated with different forms of criminality. 2. they are likely to impose less severe sanctions on offenders convicted of this crime. 1997. Crime and Criminal Justice. Public Opinion. THE OTHER CRIMES ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG ABUSE ARE RESPONDED TO CORRELATIVELY Roberts. page 56.. public reaction does not necessarily reflect an objective assessment of the harm to society. Crime and Criminal Justice. page 56.. It is important.. and when many people believed that smoking marijuana would inevitably lead to drug abuse involving "hard" drugs. This was probably not the case in the 1950s and 1960s. Estimates of the magnitude of the problem vary but statistics show that annually approximately 100.000 workers die from accidents and diseases contracted as a result of violations of health and safety codes. Loretta J. and Stalans.. THE PUNISHMENT FITS THE CRIME – THE SENTENCE CORRELATES TO THE SEVERITY OF THE DRUG Roberts. The reason for this is that public fear street crimes such as robbery and homicide more than other forms of criminality such as white collar crimes.
We are also interested in the subject of crime seriousness because criminal justice policy. is that mere possession is no longer regarded as a serious crime by most members of the public. or more specifically the punishment response focuses on street crimes of violence.West Coast Publishing NFL LD Illegal Drugs
PUNITIVE MEASURES ARE MILD BUT EFFECTIVE
1. If judges believe that a particular crime is now viewed as being less serious than in the past. Julian V.
. Julian V. Public Opinion. 1997.