1

Critical Thinking Assignment

The War on Drugs: Rehabilitation or Criminalization?

Kimberly Webb

Salt Lake Community College

CJ 1010: Introduction to Criminal Justice

Professor Chris Bertram

8th November 2020

2

Abstract

The United States has been waging the war on drugs for almost 50 years, and has little

success to show for it. Drug abuse rates have been steadily rising and substance abuse continues

to wreak havoc on the lives of people across the country. As extensive issues with drug abuse

persist worldwide, many countries are beginning to look for less punitive ways to combat and

cope with drug abuse within their borders. This November, Oregon became the first state in the

United States to follow what a few countries have done in an attempt to deal with the drug

epidemic: They decriminalized all drug use. This radical idea has real world consequences.

Other countries have had success with this move, but even so, the question stands. Should the

United States decriminalize drug use and focus on a rehabilitation-based approach to dealing

with substance abuse and addiction?

3

The War on Drugs: Rehabilitation or Criminalization?

November of 2020 presented a particularly arduous election season. It felt as though

civil unrest was right around the corner, and it seemed that the entire country held its breath,

waiting to hear what the results of the presidential election would be. While we waited for those

results, states were passing new legislations of their own. Oregon in particular had one

revolutionary measure voted into law. On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, Oregon joined the

ranks of the small handful of countries worldwide where all recreational and personal drug use

has been decriminalized [CITATION Cle20 \l 1033 ].

Recreational marijuana has been legal in Oregon since 2015, but under the new

legislation even having small amounts of what are considered to be ‘hard’ drugs, like cocaine,

heroine, oxycodone or even methenamine, has been decriminalized [ CITATION Cle20 \l 1033 ].

Under this legislation, the distribution, or intended distribution, of drugs is still considered a

criminal act, but individuals who are in possession of drugs solely for personal use will no longer

be able to be criminally charged in the state of Oregon [ CITATION Cle20 \l 1033 ]. This new law

may seem radical, but Oregon is following the lead of other countries like Czechia, the

Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland [ CITATION UNA20 \l 1033 ] whom have already begun to

see success after decriminalizing drug use within their own boarders.

In June of 1977, the United States began its so-called ‘War on Drugs’ as lead by

President Nixon [ CITATION Dru20 \l 1033 ]. Issues surrounding drug abuse are not exclusive to

the United States, other countries around the world have been trying to implement solutions to

help address their own drug problems. Throughout the early 21st century, organizations like the
4

World Health Organization, the United Nations, and Human Rights Watch have been analyzing

and comparing different strategies used to combat the issue of drug abuse.

An astounding amount of research that has been done by these organizations,

independent researchers and others shows that decriminalization may be the most effective way

to approach these issues. Proponents of this method argue that the United States needs to end its

‘war on drugs’ and shift its focus to the rehabilitation of people struggling with drug abuse.

Others argue that decriminalization of drug use will have adverse effects, including an increase

in drug use, addiction and drug-related crime rates.

Rehabilitation over Criminalization

In 2001, Portugal became the first country in the world to decriminalize any and all drug

use [ CITATION Nai18 \l 1033 ]. João Goulão is credited for being the driving force behind

Portugal’s revolutionary drug policies. When asked what lead them to change their policies so

drastically, Goulão stated, “We realized that we were squandering resources. It made much more

sense for us to treat drug addicts as patients who needed help, not as criminals.” [ CITATION

Nai18 \l 1033 ]. Portugal does just that. Those who are found with drugs are given tools and

resources to help them to combat addiction if they would like, but regardless, they are met with

compassion and human kindness as opposed to criminalization.

Hubert Matthews, an Oregon drug counselor who helped fight to get Measure 110

passed, states that when he was battling with his own drug addiction he could have used the same

human kindness [ CITATION Cle20 \l 1033 ]. Getting caught with a small amount of drugs meant

another stint in jail, and his growing criminal record made it nearly impossible for him to find a

stable job or place to live. Instead of helping him get clean, Matthews says that criminalization

further perpetuated his cycle of drug abuse [ CITATION Cle20 \l 1033 ].

5

In a report given by the Human Rights Watch, many other stories similar to Matthews’

are told to depict how treating drug addicts like criminals can continue the cycle of abuse, not

break it. The Human Rights Watch uses these stories, and other statics, to suggest that

criminally persecuting drug addicts is unnecessarily punitive and counterproductive. Human

Rights Watch goes on to state that there are other, more productive methods that can be used to

address the ever-growing drug problem in the United States. They suggest that we look towards

other countries who are implementing more rehabilitation-based approaches, like providing

easier access to voluntary drug treatments [ CITATION Hum16 \l 1033 ]. They further recommend

that the United States criminal approach to drug usage is shifted to more closely mirror how they

handle alcohol abuse.

The report given by the Human Rights Watch does more than just analyze how different

models could be more impactful when dealing with drug abuse. It goes on to claim that the

current drug laws in the United States violate human rights in general. According to this report,

“laws criminalizing the simple possession or use of drugs are an unjustifiable infringement of

individuals’ autonomy and right to privacy” [ CITATION Hum16 \l 1033 ]. This is a claim used by

many proponents of drug decriminalization.

Another commonly used argument points out the fiscal benefits of drug

decriminalization. For example, even with the implementation of extensive social services

surrounding drug abuse, Portugal’s overall budget dedicated towards dealing with substance

abuse dropped by 18% after the decriminalization of drugs [ CITATION Nai18 \l 1033 ]. Currently

the United States spends about $60 billion annually on state and federal prisoners who have been

arrested on drug crimes [ CITATION Col14 \l 1033 ]. Even if we diverted a portion of that towards

a rehabilitation-based approach, the savings would be exponential.

6

Decriminalization Does No Good

Those in opposition of decriminalization claim that the inherent risks of decriminalizing

drugs significantly outweigh the projected benefits. Kevin Sabet has served as a White House

Office of National Drug Control Policy advisor three-times. Sabet states that current drug

policies give addicts more opportunities to self-reflect and to break the cycle of addiction.

[ CITATION Cle20 \l 1033 ]. Sabet states, “For a lot of people, they stop drinking once they get a

DUI and realize what they were doing was wrong. I think a lot of people have gotten help

through drug courts. For a lot of people, consequences are important. And I think we can marry

the criminal justice and public health systems” [ CITATION Cle20 \l 1033 ]. Sabet agrees that the

United States needs improved health resources for addicts, but argues that, for many,

consequences serve an important piece in the recovery puzzle. The concern held by Sabet, and

many others who do not support the decriminalization of drugs, is that doing away with these

consequences will eliminate what currently serves as a major motivating factor to recover from

addiction.

Others point to areas with similar demographics to the United States, who’s attempts to

move towards decriminalization have, in many senses, failed. One commonly used example of

this is Vancouver, Canada. They have not decriminalized drug usage, but have adopted a ‘harm

reduction model’. One of the key elements of this model is providing addicts with safe injection

sites where they can have access to clean needles. They also boast heightened access to

rehabilitation resources. Though these resources sound great on paper, those who oppose harm

reduction and decriminalization models point out real-world, negative consequences that come

along with them. Since implementing the harm reduction model, the rate of homelessness and

addiction in Vancouver has skyrocketed [ CITATION Ruf20 \l 1033 ]. Furthermore, Vancouver

7

has seen a significant increase in overdose deaths around these ‘safe injection’ sites since their

implementation [ CITATION Ruf20 \l 1033 ].

George F. Will of the Washington Post openly opposes the idea of decriminalization in

the United States. He directly refutes the claim made by the Human Rights Watch stating that the

United States should adopt an approach similar to the way they treat alcohol regulation. Will

points out that alcohol is responsible for almost half of the United States overall criminal activity

and goes on to question how criminal activity would increase if other, more addictive drugs were

to be legalized or decriminalized [ CITATION Geo12 \l 1033 ]. He also discusses that while

prohibition is costly, we did see a decreased rate of alcohol related crime during alcohol

prohibition. Will argues that it is naïve to believe that criminal activity related to drug abuse

would not increase if drugs were to be decriminalized.

Conclusion

The issue of drug decriminalization is multifaceted. Drug abuse cannot be solved with a

simple answer, and the same answer will likely not be the same across the world. What has

worked in Portugal may not work in the United States. We have seen many instances, like in

San Francisco, where decreased drug policing has led to rampant rates of homelessness and drug

related deaths. On the other end of the spectrum, it does seem that decriminalization has had the

highest success rate globally. If the United States as a whole wants to follow Oregon towards

decriminalization, it needs to do so after having extensive conversations about what social

policies need to be implemented in order to do so safely. Simply decriminalizing drugs and

walking away will likely lead to increased drug use and crime. If we do move towards

decriminalization, we need to do so in a nuanced and tactful way.

8

References

Bajekal, N. (2018, August 1). Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer.
Retrieved from Time: https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/
Colliner, L. (2014). Incarceration Nation. Monitor on Psychology, 56.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2020). A Brief History of the Drug War. Retrieved from Drug Policy Alliance
Headquarters: https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-war
Human Rights Watch; American Civil Liberties Union. (2016). Every 25 Seconds: The Human Toll
of Criminalizing Drug Use in the United States. Human Rights Watch.
Rufo, C. F. (2020). The Harm in Harm Reduction. Retrieved from City Journal: https://www.city-
journal.org/vancouver-harm-reduction
UN Aids. (2020, March 3). Decriminalization Works, but too Few Countries are Taking the Bold
Step. Retrieved from UN Aids:
https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2020/march/202003
03_drugs
Will, G. F. (2012, April 4). Would Drug Legalization do More Harm than Good? Retrieved from
The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/would-drug-
legalization-do-more-harm-than-good/2012/04/04/gIQANg46vS_story.html
Wootson, C. R., & Peiser, J. (2020, November 4). Oregon Decriminalizes Possession of Hard
Drugs, as Four Other States Legalize Recreational Marijuana. Retrieved from The
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/04/election-
drugs-oregon-new-jersey/
9

Assignment Reflection

Through the research I have done, I’ve found that I believe decriminalization, if done

properly, could be the answer to the current drug epidemic we are facing as a country. It seems

that many other countries are slowly turning towards this model and finding success in it. My

assumption is that other countries in the Western world will begin moving towards

decriminalization. While the research that I’ve done doesn’t outright state this, I believe it does

support this assumption. Many of the articles and sources used for this assignment come from

international journals and show support for decriminalization.

I do think that more research needs to be done, specifically on what the negative effects

of decriminalization may be. I had a very difficult time finding sources to use that were not in

support of decriminalization. This was largely because the articles that I could find that were in

opposition primarily argues the morality of drug use. There was an abundance of moral

arguments and hypnotical reasoning in opposition for decriminalization, but I had difficulty

finding anything that utilized real, empirical research. I would like to see more, if any, hard data

that shows what real-world adverse effects have come from decriminalization in countries that

have already done so.

I also think that the conclusion that I came to makes sense. The empirical research that I

have found overwhelmingly shows that decriminalization works where it has been implemented.

That being said, I do think it’s important for us to remember that solutions to any given problem

are rarely universal cross-culturally. We need to slowly work towards decriminalization in a

way that makes sense for the United States culture, otherwise, it will likely fail and have severe

consequences.
10

When approaching this assignment my initial question was “should drug crimes be tried

differently?” Which evolved into the question “should drug use be decriminalized?” There were

quite a few questions asked to get from point A to point B. I believe that I did ask the right

questions. I questioned how else drug crimes could be tried, what more could be done, if

changing the laws would infringe on the rights of others, or if the way things are done currently

infringe on individual rights. I also asked what the adverse effects could be and what empirical

evidence supports. That being said, I think that you can always ask more questions with a topic

like this. I think that, for the length of this given assignment, I did ask enough questions. If I

were to ask more questions, I don’t believe that I would be able to adequately answer all of them

within the maximum amount of pages allotted.

Again, I think that this is a complex and dynamic issue with no ‘correct’ answer. There

is significant gray area when it comes to issues like drug abuse. Many different conclusions can

be correct in an issue like this. I do think that, based off of the facts and data that I have found,

the conclusion that I came to is well founded and supported.

When I began this assignment, I was in support of changing the way that we approach

drug-crimes, though I didn’t have much knowledge about any research that had already been

done. This assignment has made me even further support the idea of decriminalizing drugs and

providing a more rehabilitative approach for those who are struggling with addiction and

substance abuse issues.