Omiotek PAGE 9Alex Omiotek250790265Narcis BPolitical Science 1020E 002 WednesdayNigmendra Narain

Illicit Drugs: The Argument for Decriminalization

One of todays hottest public policy debates involves the criminal status of drugs. In the USA alone, approximately 80-90 million people have tried an illicit drug in their lifetime. Over 400 000 citizens are in jail for drug charges, about 130 000 of them just for possession alone.[footnoteRef:1] With progressive liberal views on drugs becoming ever more common as time goes on, public opinion is starting to sway towards more relaxed views on drug policy. There is still much resistance to this idea from more conservative thinkers, but the evidence in favour of drug decriminalization is only growing stronger. For this reason, I argue that the state should decriminalize all drugs for personal use. [1: Babor, Thomas , et al., Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book, Addiction 105.7, 2010, 21]

In the present, the general human consensus is that using psychoactive drugs for recreational purposes is frowned upon. Currently, most drugs are illegal due to laws in every country banning the production, selling, or possession of them. The only exception to this rule so far is Portugal, who decriminalized the possession of all drugs on July 1, 2001. Citizens are allowed to carry on their person 10 days worth of the average dose of any drug, with no threat of a criminal penalty. This is a far cry from the drug policies of all other nations, especially Canada, but times are changing. Many countries are slowly starting to adopt more relaxed approaches to drugs, or at least cannabis (aka. marijuana). The Netherlands allows citizens to purchase marijuana from coffeeshops, and possess up to 5g of it. The USA now has legal marijuana in the states of Colorado, Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. Uruguay is the first and only country to have fully legalized the production, sale, and possession of marijuana. Will other countries follow suit? We will find out in time.To discuss this topic, one must first understand what decriminalization entails. There is currently no official definition of it, but usually it refers to policy where it is not a criminal offence to simply possess the drug; you cannot be sent to prison. Most often the punishments given for possessing decriminalized drugs are either a warning, a fine (similar to a parking ticket), or a treatment program.[footnoteRef:2] Decriminalization does not allow for the production or sale of drugs; if either is suspected the individual may be sent to a criminal court. This differs from legalization, which means that all aspects of a drug are legal, allowing you to produce, sell, and possess it. [2: Kleiman, Mark, Jonathan Caulkins, and Angela Hawken, Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 26-27.]

Legalization would mean a lot more freedom, but due to this it can be very unpredictable and possibly cause unexpected results when switching to that policy style from our current status quo. Decriminalization frees our currently overloaded criminal justice system of non-violent offenders, allowing for law enforcement and the judicial system to focus on more severe crimes like domestic violence. In doing this, it still does not show that the state is condoning drug use because there is still a small penalty attached to drug possession. Decriminalization is also a safer first step towards a more sensible drug policy because it does not allow for the free reign of legalization, but certain drugs like marijuana could be fully legalized in the future if it can be proven to be a beneficial move.Now that we have discussed what decriminalization means, there are four exceptional reasons to decriminalize. The first is the harm principle. Conceived by John Stuart Mill, the harm principle is the idea that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others. Consider the idea of a middle-aged, successfully employed citizen sitting in the basement of their house smoking a marijuana joint. Similar to drinking a beer to unwind, the individual is only causing any potential harm to their own self, not to anybody else in the process. Even consider a hard drug example, like taking LSD or smoking crack cocaine in ones home. If done in private, what harm are they causing to the public? It would violate the harm principle to coerce another person in to consuming a dangerous drug, but unless that happens it is clear that drug use should not continue to be criminalized because of its lack of harm to others.Another reason for decriminalization is the promotion of treatment and access to it. In Portugal, the view on drug addicts is that they are sick people who need to be treated, while maintaining responsibility for their offence. Even the law enforcement sector was supportive of decriminalization because it focused more on treatment than punishment. In 1999, 6040 people used substitution treatment to wean off drug addiction. In 2003 after decriminalization, Portugal saw that number jump to 14 877. There were also more options for treatment, such as large increases of therapeutic communities and half-way houses since 2001. People who are for the criminalization of drugs state that this is evidence for worsening conditions, but the truth is in fact the opposite. When the fear of a criminal penalty is taken away, the dirty stigma against drug users is lifted, and addicts can feel comfortable seeking treatment instead of hiding in the shadows.[footnoteRef:3] For those who do seek treatment, there is good evidence for a couple of options. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) involves gradually lowering the amount of the drug that the user takes and switching it for another which will not cause such a heavy withdrawal. OST has been shown to lower overall mortality, lower the HIV infection rate from dirty needles, and lower crime rates. For those with moderate-level addiction or marijuana dependence, therapeutic communities have the next best level of evidence for its success.[footnoteRef:4] [3: Greenwald, Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2009, 15.] [4: Babor, Thomas , et al., Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book, Addiction 105.7, 2010, 105.]

Contrary to the guesses of many, decriminalization can actually reduce the rate of drug use. When Portugal decriminalized, their intention was to focus on prevention, not to condone drug use or increase the availability of them. In 2001, lifetime drug prevalence rate for 7th-9th grade students was 14.1%. Five years later that number dropped to 10.6%. In 1996 the lifetime drug prevalence rate in 10th-12th grade students was 14.1%. In 2001 the number rose to 27.6%, only to lower to 21.6% in 2006 after decriminalization.[footnoteRef:5] In fact, usage of all types of drugs lowered over a five year period. Clearly the fears of many anti-drug organizations that kids would be more enticed to try drugs after decriminalization is completely false. One possible reason for this is the forbidden fruit effect. It is the idea that people (especially adolescents) are attracted to an activity because it is forbidden and perceived as dangerous. Drugs are a prime example, because of their illegality and culture of deviance. If you decriminalize drugs, it takes away the coolness factor while still showing that drugs are not condoned.[footnoteRef:6] [5: Greenwald, Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2009, 11-12.] [6: Husak, Douglas, Four Points about Drug Decriminalization, Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1, 2003, 28.]

Finally, I must call upon a quote from Douglas Husak to introduce my next argument: The best reason not to criminalize drug use is that no argument in favor of criminalizing drug use is any goodno argument is good enough to justify criminalization.[footnoteRef:7] When you take a look at the arguments given for criminalization, they are sound in their claims but cannot possibly be strong enough to justify criminalization of possessing drugs. Punishment must be regarded as the worst thing a state can do to its citizens, a last resort option. Therefore, with all the aforementioned reasons, it is not sensible to lock people in prison for possessing a drug; the damage caused by the offence does not justify such severe punishments. [7: Ibid., 23]

Looking at the contrary side of this argument, I have found four main defences for the continued criminalization of drugs. The first of this is the paternalistic argument, which remarks that the state should attempt to protect the well-being of every individual to save them from potential injury. In particular, cocaine and methamphetamine increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, and cause enhanced self-confidence and aggression. This, predictably culminates in high-speed collisions, shootouts in parking lots, and destroyed immune systems. Other drugs[such as] LSD can trigger lasting psychosis.[footnoteRef:8] While I seriously doubt the frequency of drug-induced high-speed collisions or parking lot shootouts, I do understand that drugs can severely harm ones body. But the point of decriminalization is not to increase drug use, and I have shown that it decreases drug use. Decriminalization allows for people to seek treatment for their addictions without the fear of prosecution, and can save them from wasting their life in prison. [8: Sher, George, On the Decriminalization of Drugs, Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1, 2003, 30.]

A second argument is the protective argument. It goes that just as drugs can harm the user, there is in fact the possibility of harming others. Examples given for this view are the harm done to fetuses by drug-addicted mothers, or the neglect and abuse of children by their drug-addicted parents.[footnoteRef:9] Again, this argument holds weight but it fails to mention that many legal drugs can also cause these harms to others. Everyone knows the depressing concept of an alcoholic father getting so drunk that he beats his wife or children. The protective argument cannot properly justify the criminalization of drugs for these reasons and not include alcohol or tobacco on their list, it would not make for a sound argument. In addition, this argument wrongly assumes that drug users are all severe addicts. A heroin addict may have a hard time abstaining during pregnancy, but this would not likely be the case for non-physically addictive drugs such as marijuana. [9: Ibid., 30-31]

A further idea is the perfectionist argument, which reads that people agree it would be bad to live your life in an intoxicated, distorted view of reality, unable to hold a chain of reasoning. It would be wrong to waste your life, living passively without striving to achieve goals, and disregard the needs and interests of those who rely on you, due to caring more about seeking the repetition of pleasure instead.[footnoteRef:10] Drug users may choose to live their entire lives in a drug-induced fantasy, but that is extremely unlikely. The mind-altering effects of psychoactive drugs vary in their durations, but most are short periods of being high, after which the individual will return to a normal state. It would be ridiculous to imagine that decriminalizing drugs would create a drug zombie epidemic, because something like that would already be possible with todays illegal drug status, yet it does not occur. Furthermore, the use of softer drugs such as cannabis do not need to be considered a waste of life, and the claim that drugs kill motivation are clear propaganda. As I already stated, cannabis use can be directly compared to alcohol use, where one can use a low to moderate amount to further enjoy a recreational time with friends, not consume ones entire existence. [10: Ibid., 31]

A final similar argument is that drugs should not be decriminalized because of the nature of their use. Some view drugs as an inauthentic experience, which reward the user with pleasure without their honest earning of such pleasure. Others see it as an escape from real life.[footnoteRef:11] This is a flawed view, because the use of drugs can be compared to legal and socially accepted activities of a similar nature. When one visits a movie theatre, they pay a fee to watch a film and receive some form of pleasure from it. People often go to the movies to escape from real life for a couple of hours. Is this considered an inauthentic experience? Of course not. So why would it be wrong to pay a fee to use a drug which allows you to get away from the working world and enjoy a few hours of pleasure? This argument cannot be held as valid unless one were to agree that activities such as buying new music to receive pleasure from the songs should be outlawed. [11: Wolff, Jonathan, Ethics and Public Policy, London: Routledge, 2011, 73.]

I have stated the reasons for my view that drugs should be decriminalized for personal use, and I have responded to the main critiques of the decriminalization theory. It is a clear case that personal use of drugs does not harm others, at least no more than currently legal substances already do. Decriminalization allows for the state to maintain that drugs are not good and that if one is addicted, they can freely reach out for treatment without fear of a criminal record. This approach also allows for a gentler transition in to full legalization of some or all drugs if it is determined that it would provide a further benefit to society than decriminalization. With a lack of evidence for the criminalization of drugs, decriminalization is the most sensible policy.

BibliographyBabor, Thomas , et al., Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book, Addiction 105.7, 2010.Greenwald, Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2009.Husak, Douglas, Four Points about Drug Decriminalization, Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1, 2003.Kleiman, Mark, Jonathan Caulkins, and Angela Hawken, Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.Sher, George, On the Decriminalization of Drugs, Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1, 2003.Wolff, Jonathan, Ethics and Public Policy, London: Routledge, 2011.