Proponents of drug prohibition often cite three key motivators as justification for their position, these are: deterrence, harm minimisation and crime reduction. Adopting this taxonomy, it is my thesis that criminalisation is a failed policy that fails to favourably affect any of these objectives.
Central to this discussion is the notion of conventional wisdom. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term to describe an established and sacrosanct idea which may or may not be true. Some common pieces of conventional wisdom are: real estate is a superior form of investment to equities, elevated levels of inflation are undesirable and the criminalisation of narcotics is essential. These statements are convenient, appealing and ostensibly axiomatic- and herein lies the problem. When an idea becomes conventional wisdom, it becomes impervious to scrutiny. "Conventional Wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding a conventional wisdom view." (Wikipedia) For this reason, reader, my contention may initially seem to be incongruous.
It is suggested that the drug prohibition policies act as a deterrent by primarily restricting supply and signaling to the public that drug use is dangerous. The former point is laughable- even the most staunch prohibitionist would be hard pressed to argue that drugs are anything but available. Despite billions of dollars being spent annually in law enforcement, drugs are abundant. As for the latter point- it's simply non sequitur. Criminalisation in of itself is ineffective in communicating the adverse effects of substance abuse. Rather, education is achieved through grass roots health care programmes within the community. To appreciate the profound absurdity of this argument consider a hypothetical proposal to contain the HIV-AIDS tide in Africa by criminalising unprotected sex.
Prohibitionists claim that drug laws minimise harm. This claim is often emotive and deliberately convoluted. It is imperative to recognise that challenging the above assertion does not equate to mitigating the impacts of drug use itself. Substance abuse is devastating on a social, individual and family level. Ergo, the production and distribution of drugs should be regulated to ensure quality, purity and hygiene. Recently, Australian states flirted with the idea of installing safe injecting rooms- facilities where drug users were provided with clean equipment, a sanitised environment and medical assistance, including dosage guidance and rehabilitation options. Do such facilities promote drug use? No, they contain them. Such an initiative is a pragmatic response to the drug problem and constitutes legitimate harm minimisation: since users do inject, it is preferable that they do so safely. Unfortunately, this is only half the picture. Presently, there is an absence of oversight in the manufacturing of narcotics. Less euphemistically- drugs are being prepared in unsanitary labs, at unspecified concentrations, using unobservable constituents. What is it in the social psyche that precludes the transparent production and regulated distribution of narcotics to addicts? Clearly, policies of engagement, rather than isolationism act to substantially minimise harm to all stakeholders.
The final vestige of prohibitionist reasoning is the fallacy that criminalisation of narcotics reduces crime. First some history. The so-called War on Drugs properly began in 1971 during the Nixon administration, with the term attributable to the former President. Previous experiences with alcohol prohibition were disastrous and many Americans were skeptical. However, Nixon cleverly assimilated the idea for many Americans by relating it to the very relevant and palpable War on Crime (a tactic not too dissimilar to the current Administration's claims that the heroin trade funds global terrorism- legitimate though they are). Narcotics became the underlying cause of crime; the motivation for burglaries, gang turf wars and murder. Despite the ensuing splurge of billions of dollars combating domestic (crack cocaine) and international (cocaine, heroin) drug syndicates, effectively resulting in a series of temporary opiate shortages, paradoxically crime rates were to continue their exponential growth well into the 1980s. Subsequent economist studies revealed that drug busts which substantially decreased supply coincided with a spike in robberies. They concluded that the addictive nature of narcotics makes drugs an inelastic good- that is, as prices rise, demand remains roughly constant. The illusion that criminalisation of drugs alleviates crime is a proven falsehood.
As with Prohibition and abortion, the criminalisation of drugs stems more from a desire to protect society from a complex reality than to legitimately alleviate the social impacts caused. Ultimately, the notion that undue regulation (particularly in relation to people's rights to affect their own bodies) creates criminals rather than solves problems will permeate.
Central to this discussion is the notion of conventional wisdom. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term to describe an established and sacrosanct idea which may or may not be true. Some common pieces of conventional wisdom are: real estate is a superior form of investment to equities, elevated levels of inflation are undesirable and the criminalisation of narcotics is essential. These statements are convenient, appealing and ostensibly axiomatic- and herein lies the problem. When an idea becomes conventional wisdom, it becomes impervious to scrutiny. "Conventional Wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding a conventional wisdom view." (Wikipedia) For this reason, reader, my contention may initially seem to be incongruous.
It is suggested that the drug prohibition policies act as a deterrent by primarily restricting supply and signaling to the public that drug use is dangerous. The former point is laughable- even the most staunch prohibitionist would be hard pressed to argue that drugs are anything but available. Despite billions of dollars being spent annually in law enforcement, drugs are abundant. As for the latter point- it's simply non sequitur. Criminalisation in of itself is ineffective in communicating the adverse effects of substance abuse. Rather, education is achieved through grass roots health care programmes within the community. To appreciate the profound absurdity of this argument consider a hypothetical proposal to contain the HIV-AIDS tide in Africa by criminalising unprotected sex.
Prohibitionists claim that drug laws minimise harm. This claim is often emotive and deliberately convoluted. It is imperative to recognise that challenging the above assertion does not equate to mitigating the impacts of drug use itself. Substance abuse is devastating on a social, individual and family level. Ergo, the production and distribution of drugs should be regulated to ensure quality, purity and hygiene. Recently, Australian states flirted with the idea of installing safe injecting rooms- facilities where drug users were provided with clean equipment, a sanitised environment and medical assistance, including dosage guidance and rehabilitation options. Do such facilities promote drug use? No, they contain them. Such an initiative is a pragmatic response to the drug problem and constitutes legitimate harm minimisation: since users do inject, it is preferable that they do so safely. Unfortunately, this is only half the picture. Presently, there is an absence of oversight in the manufacturing of narcotics. Less euphemistically- drugs are being prepared in unsanitary labs, at unspecified concentrations, using unobservable constituents. What is it in the social psyche that precludes the transparent production and regulated distribution of narcotics to addicts? Clearly, policies of engagement, rather than isolationism act to substantially minimise harm to all stakeholders.
The final vestige of prohibitionist reasoning is the fallacy that criminalisation of narcotics reduces crime. First some history. The so-called War on Drugs properly began in 1971 during the Nixon administration, with the term attributable to the former President. Previous experiences with alcohol prohibition were disastrous and many Americans were skeptical. However, Nixon cleverly assimilated the idea for many Americans by relating it to the very relevant and palpable War on Crime (a tactic not too dissimilar to the current Administration's claims that the heroin trade funds global terrorism- legitimate though they are). Narcotics became the underlying cause of crime; the motivation for burglaries, gang turf wars and murder. Despite the ensuing splurge of billions of dollars combating domestic (crack cocaine) and international (cocaine, heroin) drug syndicates, effectively resulting in a series of temporary opiate shortages, paradoxically crime rates were to continue their exponential growth well into the 1980s. Subsequent economist studies revealed that drug busts which substantially decreased supply coincided with a spike in robberies. They concluded that the addictive nature of narcotics makes drugs an inelastic good- that is, as prices rise, demand remains roughly constant. The illusion that criminalisation of drugs alleviates crime is a proven falsehood.
As with Prohibition and abortion, the criminalisation of drugs stems more from a desire to protect society from a complex reality than to legitimately alleviate the social impacts caused. Ultimately, the notion that undue regulation (particularly in relation to people's rights to affect their own bodies) creates criminals rather than solves problems will permeate.
No comments:
Post a Comment