Multiple regulations and prohibitions are currently in place in every country in the world and enforced by such services as the police and military (Levine and Reinarman par. 68). Today, drug trafficking is linked to a variety of other criminal activities such as terrorism, organized crime, corruption, and arms trafficking (United Nations par. 3). At the same time, the anti-drug policies and practices organized and enforced in the United States these days lead to multiple concerns. Despite the fact that the so-called “war on drugs” has had some positive effects, such as the decrease of cocaine and heroin production on the global level, harm reduction, and anti-drug policies are often criticized locally for the rapid increase in incarceration rates, low effectiveness, and insufficient effort as to the complete elimination of drug use as a threat (Hunt, 7; United Nations par. 2). This paper attempts to explore the issue of “war on drugs” and its positive and negative outcomes. Besides, the research discusses the drug offense sentencing practice and the factors that legal professional are to take into consideration assigning punishments for drug crimes of different types. The attitude and actions regarding the issue of drug crimes have grown rapidly over the last several decades, and that is reflected in the contemporary incarceration patterns
Background
Everywhere in the world it is considered to be criminal behavior and the violation of law to manufacture, use, and sell drugs such as cocaine, opiates, or cannabis; there are some exceptions that concern the intake of small portions of drugs for medical purposes (Levine and Reinarman par. 68). The control over drug crimes is supported by a number of international agreements and practices. This problem is taken very seriously on the global, domestic, and international levels. As pointed out by Levine and Reinarman, up until the 20th century the anti-drug policies were not regarded as “drug prohibition”, but as “drug control” (par. 69). Such wording created a misunderstanding as to the seriousness of the policies and laws that apply to drugs.
War on drugs has made a serious impact on the modern American society. According to the data provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics under the U. S. Department of Justice, by the end of September of 2014, around 50% of all the incarcerated individuals kept in federal prison were imprisoned for drug crimes and offenses, this percentage represents approximately 96 thousand people (Carson 17). As for the state prisons, 15% of all male and 24% of all female inmates were incarcerated for drug crimes, in total, these are about 394 thousand people (Carson 16). These numbers are impressive both on their own and in comparison to the numbers of inmates incarcerated for other types of crimes that are significantly lower. As the overcrowded prisons are one of the major concerns of the contemporary criminal justice system, it might make sense to review the strengths and weaknesses of the anti-drug policies and sentencing practices.
Anti-Drug Policies: Weaknesses
Policies Affected by Public Presentation of Drug Use
The policies and regulations prohibiting drug use in the United States have been recognized as extremely harsh. According to Drucker, the criminalization and total prohibition of drugs in the USA works against the harm reduction practices (71). The author points out that the public presentation of the image of drugs is rather ignorant and not always realistic (71). For instance, drugs are stereotyped as wrongdoing of extreme severity, and practice that almost always leads to other serious crimes such as robberies, violent attacks on other individuals, and homicide. Such image of drugs is supported by the mass media and television focusing only on the worst cases of drug use and forming the public opinion. Due to this impact of media, the worst degree of drug addictions and persons reduced to criminal activities due to their drug use are portrayed as the image of typical drug users (Drucker 71). Along with the spectrum of drug use, its geography is also stereotyped to be concentrated in inner city areas, and low-income environments, whereas, in reality, they are present in a variety of other communities, such as sports society, for example (Drucker 72). As a result of stereotypes and exaggerations, drug use and users start to be blamed for all the issues of the American society, “from behavior of our children to competing with Japanese electronics” (Drucker 72). This approach distorts the
Criminalization
Because of the determination to identify and capture all drug users, the American has grown by 100% over the last decade (Drucker 72). This expansion assumes the increasing need for resources and financing. Drucker notes that to support on incarcerated individual the government needs to spend approximately 40 thousand dollars annually, and this means that billions of dollars are spent every year just to keep all the incarcerated people in jails (72). That way, the issue of criminalization turns out to have two primary negative effects – clogged prisons and growing expenses. The way the search for drug criminals is implemented is also quite shocking. Drucker’s description shows that the raids of the police to the poor districts result in mass searching of young males and females for drugs in front of the watching pedestrians and the arrests of hundreds of people daily (72). The criminalization and association of drugs with the worst activities imagined makes a negative impact on the efficiency of harm-reduction and antidrug practices implemented by the healthcare system. Hunt maintains that depenalization is required to reverse the negative effects of criminalization (27). In his work depenalization is defined as “the removal of penal controls and criminal sanctions in relation to an activity, which however remains prohibited and subject to non-penal regulations and sanctions” (Hunt 27). In other words, criminal penalty is viewed as not the right choice to address drug use. According to multiple researches, incarceration does not stimulate a behavioral change in drug users, so it is basically ineffective (Hunt 28). If the issue of criminalization is not addressed in the nearest time, the state will continue losing costs and struggling with overflow in prisons that prevents a lot of taxpayer money from getting spend on other essential needs such as healthcare or education. Fortunately, the government is aware of the problem and the actions directed at the search for immediate solutions are already taking place. In addition, criminalization of drug use and incarceration of substance abusers does not provide an efficient cure for the addiction. On the contrary, in the majority of cases, the drug criminals with addictions experience relapse into the habit and fall back on the tracks of drug crime (United Nations par. 44). The common results of such relapse are recidivism and rearrest. That way, capturing drug criminals is not a way to reduce drug crime; the danger and damage to the society remain the same. This strategy is inefficient and is to be replaced by a new attitude.
Anti-Drug Policies: Strengths
Drug Addiction as a Disease
The new approach employed by the White House in response to drug use problem is based on the idea that “addiction is a disease that can be treated; people with substance use disorders can recover” (U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy par. 2). This strategy is much more humane and less aggressive than the previous one. At the same time, it is effective as a method of crime prevention. The new approach is implemented by means of dividing the criminals based on the number of times they had been arrested for drug-related crimes previously and on the kinds of violations they commit. This practice has been implemented in Singapore, and the report to the United Nations has revealed significant success (United Nations 45). Previously, the criminal justice of that state used to criminalize all the drug-related crimes, and now, the first time abusers are enrolled in counseling programs that prevent them from relapsing into the old habits, and the second-time offended are subjected to harsh penalties (United Nations 45). Having replaced incarceration with the other kinds of punishments and treatments, the justice system became capable of identifying the individuals who can be cured of their drug addictions and bringing them back to the law-abiding society. This practice stands out not because it is more innovative, flexible, and humane. On top of all of its advantages, it helps with another important objective of the new strategy of drug crime battling – prevention.
Prevention as a Focus
As mentioned above, one more strong side of the modern anti-drug policies is their orientation at preventative actions and the belief that “innovative new criminal justice reforms can stop the revolving door of drug use, crime, incarceration, and rearrest” (U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy par. 2). Harm-reduction is the kind of drug prohibition policy that is focused not on the isolation of the drug users from the society, but on the identification of these people for the purpose of addressing their habits (Levine and Reinarman par. 84). Harm reduction policies are tolerant by nature and practice the approaches based on treating drug crimes as a public health issue, and for that they are often criticized and referred to as those supporting drug legalization (Levine and Reinarman par. 83-84). In reality, the objectives of harm reduction movements and programs are rather diverse and orientated not only to the prevention of drug crimes addressing addictions at the early stages, but also to the prevention of diseases that can be transferred by drug users to one another such as AIDS and hepatitis (Levine and Reinarman par. 85). The actions of harm reductionists are focused on the prevention and often employ unconventional methods. For instance, harm reductionists offer alternative and safe ways to use drugs for the addicted individuals; among such methods there are the provision of new and clean syringes for injections, safe rooms, or even doses of drugs. In that way, the users do not spread the diseases and infections, have a chance to use drugs safely, and are not reduced to criminal activities to obtain doses of drugs to support their habits. As a result, harm reduction works as an effective prevention technique that makes the society more secure. The harm reduction methods often face protests due to their unusual approaches. The activists are aware of their image in the society and address this problem stating that their purpose is not to convince the government to give up the attempts to battle drug use but to make drug prohibition less harmful (Levine and Reinarman par. 86). Interventions and policies based on harm reduction methods do not only work though making the drugs and equipment for using them more available but also by providing education, counseling, recommendation for the individuals who wish to get rid of the habit and help them connect with support groups and communities. Collaborating with drug reductionists is the best way for the government to fight drug-related criminal activities and the rates of drug use in the country. Realizing that, the reductionists and the criminal justice system coordinate their efforts and alter the state sentencing practices in reference to drug crimes.
Sentencing Practices
Admissions to Drug Treatment
According to the research of Justice Policy Institute, “increased admissions to drug treatment are associated with reduced incarceration rates” (2). The significant positive effect of the substance abuse treatment has been researched and tested. That way, the preference of this approach to the older practice of incarceration is logical. First of all, as one can see from the report of Justice Policy Institute, as soon as the federal investment in treatment practices increased, the rate of violent crime declined (1). It is important to notice that the percentage of individuals sent to drug treatment is almost equal to that of the violent crime reduction. This fact signifies that in the vast majority of cases drug treatment is not only efficient as a practice of health improvement, but it also minimizes the possibility of the treated individual to commit a crime due to their addiction to substances. Another powerful and important positive effect of the admissions to drug treatment is its ability to reduce the rates of incarceration (Justice Policy Institute 2). This outcome is in place because instead of sending the offenders to prisons and facilitating the overflow there, the justice system finds more constructive ways of addressing the problem of drug use treating it as a healthcare issue and curing it. The practice of drug treatment admission as a part of sentencing for the drug criminals is less violent and more proactive. Instead of criminalizing drug use and facilitating such problems as overcrowded prisons and growing rates of drug abuse and drug-related crime, the justice system fights the issue providing treatment and creating a healthier and safer society.
Conclusion
The strategy used to battle drug crimes in the USA has proved to be extremely aggressive. It included anti-drug campaigns and policies that distorted the public perception of drugs and criminalized the behaviors that could have been addressed differently. As a result, the prisons became overcrowded, harm reduction was not as efficient, and the overall level of drug use did not decline. The new strategy is orientated to prevention, and the new sentencing approach will minimize the number of drug-related incarcerations. Hopefully, the new policies will show better results as the “war on drugs” only succeeded in the global arena, while domestically drug-related problems became worse.
References
Carson, A. E. Prisoners in 2014. Web.
Drucker, Ernest. “US Drug Policy: Public Health versus Prohibition.” The Reduction of Drug-Related Harm. Ed. Ernst Buning, Ernest Drucker, Alex Matthews, Russel Newcombe, Pat O’Hare. London: Routledge, 2013. 71-81. Print
Hunt, Neil. A review of the evidence-base for harm reduction approaches to drug use. 2010. Web.
Justice Policy Institute. Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety. 2008. Web.
Levine, Harry G. and Craig Reinarman. Alcohol Prohibition and Drug Prohibition: Lessons from Alcohol Policy for Drug Policy. 2004. Web.
United Nations. Debate on Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice, Drug Control Concludes. 2009. Web.
U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. White House Fact Sheet on U.S. Drug Policy. 2012. Web.