Article

The Harmful Side Effects of Drug Prohibition

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

Some drugs make people feel good. That is why some people use them. Some of these drugs are alleged to have side effects so destructive that many advise against their use. The same may be said about statutes that attempt to prohibit the manufacture, sale, and use of drugs. Advocating drug prohibition makes some people feel good because they think they are “doing something” about what they believe to be a serious social problem. Others who support these laws are not so altruistically motivated. Employees of law enforcement bureaus and academics who receive government grants to study drug use, for example, may gain financially from drug prohibition. But as with using drugs, using drug laws can have moral and practical side effects so destructive that they argue against ever using legal institutions in this manner. This Article will not attempt to identify and “weigh” the costs of drug use against the costs of drug laws. Instead, it will focus exclusively on identifying the harmful side effects of drug law enforcement and showing why these effects are unavoidable. So one-sided a treatment is justified for two reasons. First, a cost-benefit or cost-cost analysis may simply be impossible. Second, discussions by persons who support illegalizing drugs usually emphasize only the harmful effects of drug use while largely ignoring the serious costs of such policies. By exclusively relating the other side of the story, this Article is intended to inject some balance into the normal debate. The harmful side-effects of drug laws have long been noted by a number of commentators, although among the general public the facts are not as well known as they should be. More importantly, even people who agree about the facts fail to grasp that it is the nature of the means—coercion—chosen to pursue the suppression of voluntary consumptive activity that makes these effects unavoidable. This vital and overlooked connection is the main subject of this Article.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... The question of how to devise and implement such regulatory policies in order to minimize harms and achieve successful compliance is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, we maintain that many, if not most, of the negative outcomes that are associated with so-called recreational drug use and dissemination in society are either produced or made worse through prohibition (Ostrowski 1991;Barnett 2009;Hart 2013;Todd 2018;Hart 2020). ...
... Non-medical cannabis use is decriminalized in a further 15 U.S. states, as are all socalled recreational drugs in Portugal as of 2001 (Greenwald 2009;Hughes and Stevens 2010;Kreit 2010;Silvestri 2015). drug use; see more generally Hart 2020; Pickard 2020), and it undermines the wellbeing of people who use drugs (Barnett 2009;Room and Reuter 2012;Csete et al. 2016), especially low-income racial and ethnic minorities (Clifford 1992;Provine 2007). Prohibition has not met its explicit aim of substantially lowering the overall rate of drug use, partly because severity-based deterrence, enforced by criminalization of drug possession and use, has historically been counterproductive (MacCoun 1993). ...
... When combined with criminalization, prohibition harms users by exposing them to criminal sanction, making them more vulnerable to arrest and incarceration-which itself poses health risks, including lower life expectancy and inadequate access to treatment for substance use disorders (Mauer and King 2007;Barnett 2009;Csete et al. 2016). In addition, prison conditions as normally found in the U.S. isolate people from their friends and family, deprive them of education and employment opportunities, exacerbate mental health problems, and may make people more prone to aggression (Petteruti and Walsh 2008;Raphael and Stoll 2009;Harding 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Historically, laws and policies to criminalize drug use or possession were rooted in explicit racism, and they continue to wreak havoc on certain racialized communities. We are a group of bioethicists, drug experts, legal scholars, criminal justice researchers, sociologists, psychologists, and other allied professionals who have come together in support of a policy proposal that is evidence-based and ethically recommended. We call for the immediate decriminalization of all so-called recreational drugs and, ultimately, for their timely and appropriate legal regulation. We also call for criminal convictions for nonviolent offenses pertaining to the use or possession of small quantities of such drugs to be expunged, and for those currently serving time for these offenses to be released. In effect, we call for an end to the "war on drugs." KEYWORDS race and culture/ethnicity; health policy; regulatory issues
... In the early 20th century, cannabis was criminalised in the United States (US) with global repercussions for reasons still considered by many to be controversial (Barnett, 2009;Todd, 2018). More recently, countries such as Canada (Hurley, 2018), Uruguay (Cerda and Kilmer, 2017), the majority of US states (Cambron et al., 2017;disa.com, ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Despite rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule 2 and amendments to the law permitting legal availability of cannabis for the treatment of medical conditions, access to cannabis for medical use remains challenging for patients in the United Kingdom (UK). Recreational use is widespread despite laws stating users can be sentenced to prison for up to 5 years for possession. Objective: The aim of the study was to develop a model for a legal cannabis market in the UK building upon the results of a preceding study in which a UK population sample determined that pharmacies are the most suitable primary legal vendor of cannabis as opposed to regulated shops or the black market. Methods: An online survey was developed using Qualtrics software and advertised via the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies' Facebook, Twitter and Instagram social media accounts and monthly newsletter. Results: Three hundred and ninety seven individuals, a majority having used cannabis at least once, consented to participate in the study. The participants concluded that there is enough evidence for cannabis to be prescribed to treat a range of medical conditions. In addition to pharmacies providing cannabis to patients with a prescription, a majority of participants supported cannabis being sold in pharmacies for harm reduction purposes and allowing access to medicinal cannabis in cases where supporting evidence is insufficient to merit a prescription. Participants supported greater integration between dispensing pharmacies and mental health services. Overall, the participants did not oppose a consultation or screening for potential cannabis users prior to obtaining access from licensed vendors. UK participants were supportive of the concept of a cannabis card, which users can present to licensed vendors such as pharmacies, with specific recommendations (such as strains relevant to a patient's medical condition) being coded into the card. A majority of participants supported the existence of shisha-type bars for the purchase and onsite consumption of cannabis and determined that such vendors should not be part of a pharmacy chain of stores or regulated by pharmacy regulators. The participants generally preferred that laws regarding public consumption are in line with existing smoking legislation. Participants determined that it should be legally permitted to grow cannabis at home for personal medical and non-medical purposes but not to sell for profit. Conclusion: The results are suggestive of a regulatory system that medical and non-medical cannabis users can use which aims to maximise therapeutic applications, minimise harms and respect individual liberty.
... Nearly half a century after its advent, those with a casual attitude towards drugs have judged this approach a failure. They cite as evidence the overpopulation of prisons in many parts of the world with drug offenders and high drug addiction rates (Barnett, 2009;Jensen, Gerber and Mosher, 2004). Critics also draw parallels between the 'war on drugs' and America's Prohibition Act (1920 to 1933) that engendered the growth of organised crime that made money from the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study will attempt to map a set of personality and psycho-social factors to the social media postings of two groups of individuals who were influenced by propaganda material about or from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The aim of this study is to see if – and how – the social media postings of the individual actor can be used to distinguish foreign fighters (i.e., individuals who travelled to join ISIS) from sympathisers (i.e., individuals who did not travel to join ISIS). 622 tweets posted by a sample of three foreign fighters and three sympathisers were mapped against 12 factors. Mean interrater reliability was .81, and ranged from good to excellent across all variables. One significant difference (i.e., readiness to use violence) was found between the two groups and the finding has opened new direction for further research, with the goal of providing empirical support for the online threat assessments of violent extremists.
... The costs of maintaining the status quo. Supporters of drug criminalization often argue their position by citing only the harmful effects of drug use, while ignoring the costs of such policies (Barnett, 2009). However, psychologists who are committed in their responsibilities to society must take the broader set of evidence regarding the unintended consequences of legislation into account when engaging in political action. ...
Article
Full-text available
In the United States, prohibitionist policies are used as the primary approach to combat the negative impact of substance use on society. An extensive academic literature spanning the disciplines of economics, political science, and multiculturalism documents the great social costs of the US’s “War on Drugs” both nationally and internationally. These costs come with at best marginal impact on substance abuse and other crimes linked to the drug trade. In many cases, there is reason to believe that these policies exacerbate the problems they aim to address. This paper explores psychologists’ ethical commitments to social change concerning such drug policy, given the field of psychology’s expanding commitment to social justice. We examine arguments regarding the boundaries between psychologists’ personal and professional ethics with regard to political participation. Using drug prohibition as an exemplar, we suggest that many psychologists’ political actions and professional ethics may be misaligned. Ultimately, we conclude that the endorsement of prohibitionist drug policies is in direct conflict with the guiding ethical principles put forth by the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
Article
Full-text available
he New Zealand government recently announced that a Parliamentary Select Committee would investigate the most effective public health strategies to reduce the harm of cannabis, including its legal status. Public hearings of submissions began on 30 May this year. Those in favour of the legalisation of cannabis in New Zealand have pointed out that if cannabis were legalised buyers and sellers of the drug would have full access to the legal and consumer protections currently enjoyed by all other consumers (see Drug Policy Forum Trust, 1997 and 1998; www.norml.org.nz; www.alcp.org.nz). Under drug prohibition, drug users and drug dealers cannot call on the police and courts to enforce the terms of transactions, and are unlikely to report incidents of victimisation to the police for fear of prosecution. (Barnett, 1987; Kleiman, 1992; Miron and Zwiebel, 1995). The reliability of black market cannabis transactions has a number of implications for cannabis law reform. It impacts on how socially costly the present policy of prohibition is, and hence, in part, the extent of the case for cannabis law reform (Field and Casswell, 2000). If large numbers of people are physically or economically harmed when purchasing cannabis from the black market, this consequence, along with any other negative consequences of prohibition, should be weighed up against the positive benefits of maintaining prohibition. The issue of transactional reliability of the black market also impacts on the extent of the social benefits that can be expected if cannabis were legalised. A very unreliable and violent black market would suggest there might be significant social benefits from the legalisation and regulation of the market. Alternatively, a relatively reliable and peaceful black market would suggest the social benefits from legalisation and regulation of the market may be small. This paper investigates the reliability of black market cannabis transactions in New Zealand, and discusses the implications for cannabis law reform. It begins by using economic theory to develop a simple model of the reliability of illicit drug transactions. It then presents the findings of a survey of members of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party (ALCP) about the reliability of their cannabis transactions. The conclusion explores the implications of the model and survey have for cannabis law reform in New Zealand.
Article
Full-text available
Classic accounts of prosecutorial discretion, from Herbert Wechsler through the present day, portray charging discretion as the antithesis of law. Scholars express particular concerns about racial and other nefarious grounds for prosecution, while others worry about the increased range of choices available to prosecutors when criminal codes become bloated with new crimes. The familiar response to this problem features a call for greater external legal regulation. The external limits might come from judges who review prosecutorial charging decisions, or from legislatures reworking the criminal code. These external oversight projects, however, have failed. This article explores some facets of internal regulation - efforts within prosecutors' offices to control and legitimize prosecutorial discretion. Based on remarkably detailed data from New Orleans and observations from several other major cities, we are able to examine the inner working of prosecutors' offices - the black box - to learn about the reasons prosecutors give for their declinations. The long-delayed arrival of the information age to prosecutors' offices allows us to understand more about the internal regulatory forces within those offices. Our thesis is simple but profound: the internal office policies of thoughtful chief prosecutors can produce the predictable choices, respectful of legal constraints, that lawyers expect from traditional legal regulation. The reasons prosecutors give for their charging decisions show the influence of substantive and procedural legal doctrines and the policy priorities of supervisors - all sources that one would expect to dominate in a system that respects the rule of law. Moreover, these reasons show prosecutors responding to social norms, living up to group expectations about what it means to be a prosecutor in that particular office. The internal norms of prosecutors differ from other social norms recognized and studied by legal scholars because they grow and operate within a government organization. Norms within government organizations are far more susceptible to design changes than social norms in public and private groups. The key virtue of social norms within a prosecutor's office is transparency. Internal regulations deserve respect when they expose the prosecutor's black box to scrutiny and accountability.
Article
Full-text available
Legal scholars are almost unanimous in condemning felony murder as a morally indefensible form of strict liability. This Article provides the long-missing principled defense of the felony murder doctrine. It argues that felony murder liability is deserved for killing negligently by means of a violent or apparently dangerous felony involving an additional malign purpose independent of physical injury to the victim killed. This claim follows from the simple idea that the guilt incurred in attacking or endangering others depends on one’s reasons for doing so. The article develops this idea into an expressive theory of culpability that assesses blame for harm on the basis of two dimensions of culpability: (1) the actor’s expectation of causing harm and (2) the moral worth of the ends for which the actor imposes this risk. It contrast this theory of culpability with the narrowly cognitive theory of culpability prevailing among criminal law scholars. It shows that the cognitive theory is motivated by the aspiration to achieve a value-neutral criminal law. Next it shows that it is impossible to assign culpability for a particular injury like homicide without evaluating actor’s ends. In addition, the article shows that an expressive theory better fits the overall pattern of American criminal law doctrine than does a purely cognitive theory of culpability. Finally, it argues that liberal political theory does not require that criminal law maintain value neutrality.
Article
Full-text available
Drug overdose is a major cause of premature death and morbidity among heroin users. This article examines recent research into heroin overdose to inform interventions that will reduce the rate of overdose death. The demographic characteristics of overdose cases are discussed, including factors associated with overdose: polydrug use, drug purity, drug tolerance, routes of administration, and suicide. Responses by heroin users at overdoses are also examined. Potential interventions to reduce the rate of overdose and overdose-related morbidity are examined in light of the emerging data in this field.