Debates Over Drug

Policy Perspectives

Reuter (1992)
Inciardi & Saum (1990)
Reuter (1992): Hawks Ascendant

 Three Policy Perspectives

1) Hawks: Get Tough, Enforcement (Dominated lately)
2) Doves: More Treatment, less Enforcement
3) Owls: Want the right mix of policies for Max. Effect
 Owls: Favor “Harms Reduction” (Europe)
• Drug Use will happen, so how do we reduce its harms?
• Things like needle exchange to reduce HIV spread
• Hawks say these just encourage drug use
• Offering drug abuse treatment “bails out” users
Do you think people start using drugs thinking…
“it’s ok…If I get addicted, I can just go to treatment”?
Possible
Drug Policy Perspectives
 Prohibition (banned)
 Regulation (limited, including Medicalization)
 Decriminalization (not arrested)
 Legalization (no limits)

As we’ve seen, the effects of any Policy Vary by Drug

in Question
• Whether it is heavily related to crime
We also don’t really know what would happen with
policy changes, b/c we haven’t done it (much)
 Why even talk about legalization?

 Reliance on Heavy Enforcement has (unintended?)

negative consequences
• For instance, high prison costs & other social costs
 Legality of a Drug not related to its Dangerousness
• Alcohol/Tobacco are very costly/dangerous, but “Legal”

 Some people question…

• What is Government’s Proper Role/Responsibility?
• “Drug use is a personal issue”: Laissez Faire/Civil Libertarian Ideas
…Or…
• Does Gov’t need to Protect Social Order/Public Health?
 Public Opinion & Public Policy
 Gallup Poll results:
• 1977: 34% favored MJ legalization
• 1990: 24% favored MJ legalization
• Many also favored more Interdiction & Longer sentences
• Not a great idea, based on scientific results
• 2016: 60% favored MJ legalization
 Is Public Opinion always a good basis for Policy?
Trends in Support for Legalizing
Marijuana (1970-2010)
 Inciardi & Saum (1990):
Legalization Madness
Present Arguments Against Legalization
1. More Widespread use, so more Users
2. The Users can’t support selves, drug habit with work
3. So, More Economic & Psychopharmacological crime
(Basically more users, so more bad stuff will happen)

What do we know about these two types of Drug-related

crime??
they are limited to certain drugs and crime types
 Legalization Madness (cont.)
 More Arguments Against Legalization
• Offender Surveys show that:
• 30% used MJ within 24 hrs of committing their murder
• 33% reported they “thought it was related” to their crime
• Studies of Murder in NY City:
• 10-50x more likely killed if used cocaine

But, what do these numbers really mean??

• Authors are trying to convince you with rhetoric
but not as clear as it seems
Legalization Madness (cont.)
 Make several inaccurate statements:
• No research shows addicts do crime for drug money
• Crack is a cheap habit
• Most dealing-related violence is actually
psychopharmacological, but mis-cites Goldstein’s research
• MTF data show low levels of illegal drug use, but MJ is used by
33%, and it is also illegal
• Small # of users use most of the drugs, so illegality must be
suppressing use, but that also means…
• Treatment & prevention for small # could have big impact
• Effect of removing illegality of drugs on addiction?
• Claims # of cocaine addicts would increase 2400%
 What’s the Big Message Here?

 Don’t be swayed by Rhetoric

• Drug Use and Crime are complicated issues
• The solutions are also complicated
• It’s hard to deter addicted users & to reduce the supply of
drugs
• Like it or not, Treatment & Prevention can work, and
work better than things that “seem like good ideas”
• No one approach will be completely successful
• We need to keep looking for the right mix of policies
Science can help us make better policy decisions