Drugs and Drug prohibition regimes - Universitetet i oslo · Institutt for kriminologi og...

Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi

Drugs and Drug prohibition

regimes

Jur 5101 Criminology. 15.04.2011

Camilla Lied

[email protected]


TOPICS

• What signifies the drugrelated subculture, especially

the heroin user culture?

• Why is this subculture appealing to some people?

• What role does the prohibition play?

• How does prohibition affect the members of the

subculture?

• What effects would legalization of illicit drugs have?


Heroin addicts speak

• Short insight in the most common way of describing

heroin addiction:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOPOK24g9Cc&f

eature=player_detailpage

• Many people live like this, all over the world. Why? – Because of the evil of heroin?

– Because of prohibition? Despite the prohibition?

– Because of something else?

Important discussion in Norwegian criminology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOPOK24g9Cc&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOPOK24g9Cc&feature=player_detailpage


What is heroin?

• Medical term: diacetylmorphine

• Invented in 1874 by C.R Wright, who saw it as a useless drug.

• Reinvented 1898, commercialized by Bayer, and got the name Heroin.

• Thougt to be a non-addictive substitute for morphine.

• Sedative, relaxes muscles

• Used mostly as a medicine for coughs, also for children.

• Seen as a wonder-medicine, Bayer sold a ton of it to different

countries in 1899.

– Available as losenges, tablets, water-soluble powder and heroin

elixir.

(Gotfredsen, Frantzsen & Recke 2008)


Heroin prohibited

• 1905: discovered that it was in fact addictive.

• Bayer stopped selling it

• 1924: production and use prohibited.

• Since then, the prohibition policy system has only

grown.


Today: Drugs: policies and strategies of

intervention

a) Prevention: drug prevention programmes, mass media campaigns,

reducing access for youth, changing attitudes;

b) Services for drug users: methadone, counseling, probation / parole

supervision, heroin substitution (UK), needle exchange (purpose:

improve health, reduce overdose deaths);

c) Supply control: policing and prosecution of traffickers / dealers

(purpose: reduce availability);

d) Prescription regimes: allow psychoactive substances to be

consumed for approved purposes

e) Criminal sanctions: increase penalties for drug possession and use

(Purpose: deterrence of drug use)


Drugs as a problem

Since the late 1970s: progressive criminalization of

drug use and possession

“War on drugs“ - dramatic growth in

incarceration for drug offenses. US federal system –

prisoners on drug charges comprise half of the

prison population

Enforcement programmes: eradication, interdiction

of smuggled goods, investigation, street level

enforcement

Christie and Bruun (1985): drug users as ‘suitable

enemies’


Global ‘war on drugs’

International drug control treaties mandate domestic legislation

The dominant role of the USA (over 700 drug officers abroad; certification /

designation programme)

Global drug control and prohibition efforts have had questionable effects (see

UNODOC Annual Reports)

Significant increase in global production

The variety of national drug policies

Third world countries: drugs as a source of income and a source of violence

(Nadelmann 1989)

Mexico: war on drugs: thousands killed in a war between powerful drugcartells

and the law enforcement.

About Mexico, USA and the war on drugs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1eOaLi0_o

Norway: prioritizes law enforcement strategies – high mortality rates among

long-term users

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1eOaLi0_o


Lalander (2003) Hooked on Heroin

Drug users as ‘outsiders’ (Becker)

Development of a subculture: an alternative system of

norms – transgression as a central part of their lifestyle

subcultural studies: understanding how people make

sense of their everyday life (drug users not as ‘irrational

victims)

Lalander (p. 8): how can a number of young people

use heroin and continue to do so despite the fact that it

is taboo-ridden and life-threatening?


Trainspotting

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkYj56LW4ag&feature=play

er_detailpage

• Youngsters ”drifting away” from the conventional society, with a

confused and indignated elder generation watching.

• The making of a subculture through slang, certain taste in

music, style in clothes, way of acting.

• Begins with fun and exitement, ends in ”hell”. Sexually immoral

behaviour, death, illusion, paranoia, hallusination, violence,

breaking up of families, child neglect, everything falls apart as

you drift away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkYj56LW4ag&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkYj56LW4ag&feature=player_detailpage


Normless?

• “The subculture`s members do not appear to have absorbed

the morality that established society`s representatives, for

example parents and teachers, have tried to impress on them,

but in actuality they have. The subculture develops in antithesis

to established culture. Its members are carriers of both modern

society`s norms and the subculture`s, but once in the

subculture they have a tendency to act from the subculture`s

perspective” (Lalander 2003:7).

• “normlessness” is not the answer. (Lalander)

• Could it be that the subculture membership is useful in any

way?


Useful?

• If the subculture didn`t give its members some advances

compared to what they would get without, it wouldn`t be

interesting to participate in it, helping to reconstruct it. They

were, thus, neither forced to learn nor brainwashed; rather they

found the education of the subculture challenging, thrilling and

highly instructive» (Lalander: 12)


Internal norms, defining

subculture

Importance of internal rules, solidarity and

boundaries against outside threats. The heroin

subculture has several norms that define the

subculture. -What outside threats?

PL: The threat from outside is primarily about

established society`s representatives, the police who

use all possible means to prevent the ingestion and

sale of illegal substances. Society`s rule enforcers

attempt to uncover the subculture`s activities and,

thus, influence the shaping of the culture and the

ritual activities engaged in by the subculture. (p. 59)


Group boundaries

• Mary Douglas: Illegitimate subculture separated

from society, boundaries pronounced in comparison

to other group`s boundaries.

• Heroin subculture, number one threat: the police. – Mostly the drug squad, in uniform or plain clothing

Daily life in the heroin subculture can be seen as a

never ending cat and mouse-gamestory. The cat

always tries to have the upper hand, the mouse

needs to know all the tricks to stay away from the

trap.


Illustration: The wire

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-

Sgj78QG9Bg&feature=player_detailpage

• Good illustration of the cat and mouse-game.

• Like in Tom and Jerry-cartoon, the story keeps repeating itself.

Cat never gives up, mouse knows all the tricks.

• War on drugs, never ending police work, still goes on despite

poor results.

• The subculture survives

• The police gets more funding

• Drug supply still the same

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sgj78QG9Bg&feature=player_detailpage




P. Bourgois (2003): In Search of respect

Street culture: resistance and self-destruction

violent inner-city street culture, dominated by the illegal drug economy, has

become the employer of the last resort for youth in El Barrio

the street culture offers its participants possibilities for achieving alternative

forms of dignity, creativity and conspicuous consumption, as well as becomes

an active agent in personal degradation and community ruin

The young men’s tough macho cultural identity, which could function

effectively on the factory shop floor, is dysfunctional in the feminised, white-

collar ‘yuppie’ environments, which demand subservient modes of interaction.

Sandberg and Pedersen (2009): Street Capital: Black cannabis dealers in a

white welfare state

Masculinity and the cannabis economy

Street capital: toughness and racial otherness as a source of ‘capital’


”The heroin mind”

• In the beginning: not ”hooked”. Recreational use, fx in

weekends.

• After a while, change ”the heroin mind”

• ”Increasingly, existence centres on heroin and the different

ways of providing economically for it. They become addicts in

the full sense of the word. Their daily life becomes dominated

by thoughts of heroin, highs and lows, and obtaining it. (…)

Time perspectives, for those who are heavily dependent on

heroin and who live at the bar level, are short and focused on

one thing: heroin. To live at ”bag level” means never earning

much money and having a very short-term drug-plan.

Furthermore, the bag user is dependent on the dealers and

must maintain a good relationship with them (Lalander, p.60)


The heroin mind 2

• Only aspects relating to heroin is of intrest, also

friends

• Always alert and looking for possible drug

squad/police

• Spotting public toilets

• Spotting opportunities for theft or other ways to get

hold of money

• Seeing goods in the shop in regard to the price of

heroin

• Always planning to the secure the next fix


Lack of trust

• Even though a subculture, there is a lack of trust

between the members. People ”work alone”.

• Stealing from friends/sponging

• Snitching

• heroin develops from a collective project into an

individual one (Lalander p.67)


Fake it til`you make it

I think it`s unfair, that because one has become an addict, that doesn`t

mean that you are a a person without feelings. Many people think so;

that when a person is a heroin-addict, he doesn`t have feelings. The

think you have ”junked” your feelings away. Well, we do that alot, but

of course, we do have feelings like everyone else. The thing is, we

have a bright side and a dark side. That is the awful thing about this

drug, it makes you able to keep on going, it helps you to fake it till you

make it. Until you come home. That is when the tears come, all your

problems in life appear inside you. You just don`t do that in the streets.

Because, if you show your tears in the streets, you`ve lost. You have

to put your concience aside if you want to survive on the streets. An

that is painful. It`s fucking painful to be without your conscience! So

when you do things in the streets, you just can`t think about it.

Because then, it is a question of survival (danish heroin addict). (Lied

2011)


Lalander`s conclusions/some

important points

• In the beginning, using heroin is all about action, freedom and

togetherness

• After a while, loneliness, distrust, working har to get the next

dose.

• To survive in the heroin subculture, you need a strong caracter,

and the ability to know the game and the unwritten rules.

• Prohibition makes heroin expensive, and police work toward the

users shapes the subculture; Stress, distrust. Playfulness

has become suspicion and undemanding togetherness has

become caution. (p.167)


Legalize it? Regulate it?

• Recent years: ever inreasing pressure and argumentation

towards legalizing drus, the war on drugs seems to have failed.

• Fx: ”LEAP”; Law enforcement against prohibition.

– Former police officers who worked in fx. ”drug squads”.

• Ethan Nadelmann, Drug policy alliance. Web:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/

• Discussion difficult, partly because of lack of knowledge about

drugs, and, according to fx. LEAP, DPA, the demonization of

drugs, especially heroin.

• Main discussion point; is the war on drugs the reason for the

drug-related problems, or should we blame the drugs

themselves?

http://www.drugpolicy.org/


Difficult debate, strong feelings

• Discussions of drug policy often has strong

opponents on both, or all sides, discussions often

energetic, all standing strongly on their beliefs.

• Example: Ethan Nadelmann on 60 minutes, debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-

42YMN3xEWc&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-42YMN3xEWc&feature=player_detailpage




Nadelmann (1989): Drug

prohibition in the united states

• Growing critisism toward the drug prohibition and war on drugs.

Nadelmann argues that a legalization or decriminalization is

necessary.

• Legalization incorporates the many arguments and growing

sentiment for the de-empasizing our traditional reliance on

criminal justice resources to deal with drug abuse and for

emphasizing instead drug abuse, prevention, treatment, and

education, as well as noncriminal restrictions on the availability

and use of psychoactive substances and positive inducements

to abstain from drug abuse (Nadelmann 1989)


Legalization; many meanings

• Different views about the degree and nature of legalization needed.

– 1) the removal of all criminal sanctions and taxes on the production and

sale of all psychoactive substances with the possible exeption of

restrictions on sales to children.

– 2) Limiting legalization to one of the safest (relatively speaking) of all illicit

substances: marijuana.

– 3) ”Medical” oversight modelsimilar to today`s methadone maintenance

programs.

– 4) (E.Nadelmann`s view): Combining legal availability of some or all illicit

drugs with vigorous efforts to restrict consumption by means other than

resort to criminal sanctions. Many supporters of this dual approach

simultaneously advocate greater efforts to limit tobacco consumption and

the abuse of alcohol as well as a transfer of government resources from

anti-drug law enforcement to drug prevention and treatment. (Nadelmann

1989, part 1)


Legalization: risks

• E.N: Neither drug legalization nor enforcement of

anti-drug laws promises to ”solve” the drug problem.

• Legalization can also present certain risks. – Will increase the availability of drugs

– Will decrease prices of drugs

– Will remove the deterrent power of the criminal sanction may

increase drug use/abuse.


Why take the risks?

• Nadelmann presents three reasons why these risks

should be taken by legalizing drugs. – Drug control strategies that rely primarily on criminal justice

measures are significantly and inherently limited in their capacity to

curtail drug abuse

– Many law enforcement efforts are not only of limited value but also

highly costly and counterproductive; indeed, many of the drug-

related evils tha most people identify as part and parcel of the

”drug problem” are in fact the costs of drug prohibition policies.

– The risks of legalization may well be less than most people

assume, particularly if intelligent alternative measures are

implemented. (Nadelmann 1989, p.1)


What are the costs of prohibition?

• EN: criminal justice efforts do have an effect, but not

in the way that was planned. It seems to have little

effect on price, availability and consumption of illicit

drugs.

• The criminalization of the drug market has proven

highly costly and counterproductive in much the

same way as the national prohibition of alcohol in the

1930`s. (Nadelmann 1989:2)


Connection drugs-crime?

• Is the connection between drugs and crime a ”natural” og a

constructed connection? Nadelmann has 5 examples of connections

between drugs and crime:

• 1) Nadelmann: production, sale, purchase, possession of marijuana,

cocaine etc. are crimes. An absense of prohibition this wouldn`t be

considered crimes. crime rates would decrease.

• 2) Many commit crimes like burglary and robbery in order to pay for

drugs. Drugs cost more than alcohol and tobacco because they are

illegal. Legalization would lead to a lower cost, which could reduce the

need to commit such crimes.It has been proven that methadone and

giving heroin to addicts, reduces crime.

• Report from CNN about giving heroin to addicts:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/health/2009/10/14/newton.u

k.heroin.clinic.cnn.html

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/health/2009/10/14/newton.uk.heroin.clinic.cnn.html

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/health/2009/10/14/newton.uk.heroin.clinic.cnn.html


Connection drugs-crime 2

• 3) Research showed that about half of illicit drug users who were interviewed in

prison, did not try illicit drugs undtil after their first incarceration. Nadelmann:

perhaps many of the same factors that lead individuals into lives of crime also

push the in the direction of substance abuse. it is possible that legalization

would diminish this connection by removing from the criminal subculture the

lucrative opportunities that now derive from the illegality of the drug market.

(p.3)

• 4) Some connection with some drugs, such as crack. Dilemma: no drug is as

strongly associated with violence as alcohol. Why, then , is it legal?

• 5) The violent, intimidating and corrupting behavior of drug traffickers. Illegal

markets breed violence. – Both because they attract criminally minded and

violent individuals and because paticipants in the market have no resort to legal

institutions to reolve their disputes (p.4)

Nadelmann: no prohibition would make the traffickers jobless.


Human costs of prohibition

• Nadelmann: Criminalization of a an enormous

number of people.

• Illicit drug production using dangerous fertilizers and

blending fx. heroin with other synthetic substances

for profit healt danger to users. Overdoses

because of unexpectedly potent or impure drugs.

• HIV/AIDS. Prohibition, lack of harmreductive projects

such as needle exchange, and also strict police

control in the streets can lead to more people

sharing needles.


Reasons for legalization

• Nadelmann: A drug control policy based predominantly on approaches other

than criminal justice (…) offers a number of significant advantages over the

current criminal justice focus in controlling drug use and abuse. It shifts control

of production, distribution, and, to a lesser extent, consumption out of the hands

of criminals and into the hands of government licencees, it affords consumers

the opportunity to make far mor informed decisions about the drugs they buy

than is currently the case. It dramatically lessens the likelihood that drug

consumers will be harmed by impure, unexpectedly potent, or misidentified

drugs.

• It corrects the hypocritical and dangerous message that alcohol and tobacco

are somehow safer than many illicit drugs. It reduces by millions of dollars

annually government expenditures on drug enforcement and simultaneously

raises additional billions in tax revenues. And it allows government the

opportunity to shape consumption toward relatively safer psychoactive

substances and modes of consumption.(E:N 1989:7).


Conclusions

• Drug prohibition and the war on drugs seems to

have large human and economic costs.

• Police enforcement towards the users, might be

more damaging to the users, than the drug-use in

itself.

• Probibition doesn`t seem to have many positive

effects.

• Still, war on drugs goes on. Maybe there are other

reasons for the war on drugs?

Drugs and Drug prohibition regimes - Universitetet i oslo · Institutt for kriminologi og...

Documents

Transcript of Drugs and Drug prohibition regimes - Universitetet i oslo · Institutt for kriminologi og...