-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Just finished 16 page policy analysis on legalization
- Thread starter JohnnyATL
- Start date
what was the overall conclusion positve or negative?
well its not a conclusion, you basically tell the issues, then give suggestions to make it better. ill post it, but my alternatives were
1. Full legalization
2. Keep illegal but change punishment from incarceration to rehabilitation and education programs
3. Medicinalize/reschedule drugs
4. decriminalize.
after my bibliography and everything this fucker is 20 pgs whats the best way to put onhere?
1. Full legalization
2. Keep illegal but change punishment from incarceration to rehabilitation and education programs
3. Medicinalize/reschedule drugs
4. decriminalize.
after my bibliography and everything this fucker is 20 pgs whats the best way to put onhere?
Drug Prohibition Policy Analysis Report
Georgia State University
Executive Summary
Decisions made by the United States government on how they handle the growing issue of drug use and abuse and specifically the issue of prohibition will have a profound effect on the drug use, incarceration rates, recidivism rates, and tax revenues.
A study conducted by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center for the U.S. Army and the ONDCP found that treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine [and other drugs] in the United States. (Rydell & Everingham) Additional evidence reinforcing this failed policy found that “every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7, and that additional domestic law enforcement costs 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in drug abuse and related social costs”.( Rydell & Everingham) While these cost are generally focused on government expenditure, many studies do not take in to account the economic opportunity cost of the high rates of incarceration and cost of that incarceration has on the general population.
Throughout the research conducted, evidence consistently led one to suggest that the best policy options regarding this issue are among the following:
• Legalize Drugs/Drug Use/Selling drugs/Manufacturing etc
• Keep Drugs Illegal – modify policy from punishment to rehabilitation
• Doctor approved drug use – e.g. Medical Marijuana
• Decriminalization - similar policy to places like Holland
Note: These options offer a start difference in drug policy. Many believe that there is no right or wrong answer, but that the best choice is a mixture of the above choices. By evaluating these options, their feasibility, and the public opinion for each, you can then narrow your options.
I. Drug Use and Abuse Policy Review
Through detailed observations and analysis, I am making a recommendation that a policy review takes place dealing with the continued issue of prohibition of illicit substances in the United States. Focus groups and surveys of the American public have made it apparent that we need to update our policy regarding the classification of drugs, prosecutions of drug use, and the viable use of rehabilitation opposed to incarceration – all due to the changing public opinion of drugs as a whole. Also by legitimizing this industry, we could begin to see legitimate monetary benefits from increases in education, government regulation, and taxation – all of which are currently being forfeited by government entities due to black-market monopolization.
The war on drugs began with a push by the United States beginning in 1969 under President Richard Nixon - later continued under President Regan. The mission of this war was not only eliminating drugs coming into the USA from foreign entities, but it also aimed at incarcerating domestic suppliers and users. Although this policy of punishment seems to work on first examination, it has essentially led to the USA having the highest prison incarceration rate per capita in world. According to the World Prison Brief, “new figures represent a record 33-year continuous rise in the number of inmates in the U.S.”(World Prison Brief) The current incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 residents places the United States first in the world in this regard. Russia had previously rivaled the U.S., but [now has] a current rate of incarceration of 611 per 100,000. Rates of incarceration per 100,000 for other industrialized nations include Australia - 126, Canada - 107, England/Wales - 148, France - 85, and Japan – 62” (The Sentancing Project). Another startling figure deals with rates of incarceration due to drug use. According to the Bureau of Prisons, “as of March 2001, federal drug offenders constituted 56.3% of the total federal prison population”, (Beck & Harrison) and “between 1990 and 1999 drug cases represented a 60.9% increase in federal prison growth”. (Beck & Harrison -Tables 17,19) These drug cases range from things like simple possession, dealing, property crimes, and violent crimes. Furthermore, examples of incarceration rates show a direct correlation of public opinion regarding - not only the failing of prohibition, but the ineffectiveness of law enforcement agencies at enforcing these laws aimed at combating drug use. It is argued that with such a large percentage of the population using drugs, it in effect has changed public opinion regarding the substances. Does the public feel like this should still be a punishable crime, and do our current laws enforce apathy towards common law? These are all questions we must ask as policy decision makers.
Although drug usage in the United States is gradually increasing, the real policy issue at hand is the inability for government agencies to educate, regulate, and collect revenue and issue tax on these products. Because Marijuana and other drugs are still illegal, it is hard to know how much revenue is made off these substances, but estimates are in the 25-60 billion dollar range annually for marijuana alone. Essentially, there is a multi billion-dollar industry being monopolized by the black market, which in turn is limiting the funds that would be accessible to state, and federal tax revenues. This information is even more interesting when you take into account the percentage rate of people who favor legalization. According to polls from ABC New/Washington Post/Time & CNN, “46% of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana for personal use,” and similarly, 14 states to date have legalized medicinal marijuana with approval from a physician. This shows the large attitude change in the state, and although they had yet to secure the majority it shows the changing tides in America. Currently in California, groups are working to enact legislation such as Proposition 19 or The Regulate, Control and Tax Marijuana Act of 2010. “ The proposed bill of Representative Tom Ammiano regarding the legalization of the sale of marijuana in California [tackles that issue]. The legislator explained that legalizing the drug would provide the state more than $1 billion annually in tax. He [also] proposed that an ounce of marijuana must have a tax of $50. However, it is noted that the bill may face legal challenge because the federal law considers possessing or selling marijuana a crime. Alternatively, opponents of legalization often cite increased drug use as the result of legalization but in actuality, substances are able to be regulated much better when they are taken off the streets and placed in a setting like a pharmacy or a storefront where you can monitor the sales and taxation. This can be seen in places like Amsterdam where decriminalization of small amounts of drugs has actually led to decreased drug usage among its population. (EMCDDA)
Another issue facing this policy re-evaluation is education reform. Education reform is needed if society plans on combating drug use, and it arguably plays one of the largest roles in keeping individuals from trying drugs (specifically children). Also, it plays a huge role in the rehabilitation of addicts who often need extraneous help. By working to focus policy creation on education and rehabilitation we could have the ability to affect the rates of success in limiting new addiction. A study conducted by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center for the U.S. Army and the ONDCP found that “treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine [and other drugs] in the United States” (Rydell & Everingham). The same study found that “every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7, and that additional domestic law enforcement costs 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in drug abuse and related social costs”(Rydell & Everingham). This example shows a direct correlation to the issues of cost-benefits specifically whether or not our current policy is not only fiscally responsible but if it is morally objective to the citizens in our communities.
II. Alternatives and Criteria
Below are the details of the possible alternative policy options in regards to the current drug use and abuse problem within the United States. While focusing mainly on policy reform regarding legalization, this section also works to elaborate on the current policy goals and effects being discussed when dealing with the reaction to regulation by the government, education and rehabilitation of offenders, and most importantly, the economic incentives which present themselves once the black market aspect of the product is removed. The best method to achieve these goals can be argued but during my research I have had narrowed the selections of policy alternatives to four basic choices.
These are:
1. Full or Broad Legalization of drugs
2. Keep Illegal – focus on rehabilitation and education
3. Allow easier doctor control – Medicinally administer to patients
4. Decriminalization
The main idea that supports the current policy of drug prohibition enacted in the United States is the concept that making something illegal can stem its demand. Not only has been proven incorrect, it results can easily be seen inversely in the United States historically with the results of prohibition of alcohol and also via increasing current incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenders. Also, many people argue that these illegal substance abuse issues facing the American public are much different from the legal substance abuse problems like cigarettes and alcohol – that these products are illegal for a reason. This difference is reality is actually very minuscule, and cigarettes kill many more people each year than products like marijuana, cocaine, and heroin respectively (See graph on pg 7). Although these products do impair, it all comes down to personal responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions when they are affecting public safety. A perfect legal example of that would be the ability to drink a glass of wine (or 10) without any repercussions, yet once you get behind the wheel of a car it becomes a public issue that requires public action.
The idea of regulation is one policy option that legalization allows to take place. The policy of prohibition basically is counterintuitive in the idea that once you make a product illegal, you eliminate all ability to control that substance. Once you are able to remove the product from the black market by legalization and regulation, you can then work to control its purity, price, age limits for sale, and all other aspects of production. Not only would this regulate the process and factors of productions, it would also allow the government to control the retail of the product and hold the sellers accountable. Also this regulation would allow for safer drug consumption because now users are able to get pharmaceutical grade products at medical prices and doses without risking the chance of overdose due to impurity and also without having to commit crimes to support their habit. Opponents also argue that by legalizing drugs we would risk increasing children’s exposure and the substance’s availability, yet this too is questionable due to the fact that once you remove the product from the hands of criminals, you then place it in legitimate retail facilities which then allow for age verification in a situation similar to alcohol that is impossible with the black market. In fact, the results of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2008 showed estimates of the US population aged 12 and over who admit to using substances and their availability, and “In 2008, CASA reported that 25% said cigarettes, 23% said marijuana, 19% said prescription drugs, 15% said beer, and 7% said it was the same for all.”(QEV) This shows a sharp distinction in the availability of these substances and the direct correlation with their legality.
Another similar policy option deals with keeping the drug scheduling as is, and instead focusing on the complete overhauling of the rehabilitation and education system the United States in order to better suit the needs of the consumer. The Obama administration has in fact began to end the so-called “War on Drugs” instead focusing US federal policy on prevention and harm reduction, and according to Ross this is the right response, and “drug legalization allows the government to deal with drug cartels accordingly and reduce prison populations. (Ross) Many issues are facing these addicts, yet arguably one of the most counter effective policies in place is the idea of rehabilitation by incarceration. Because there are so many crimes committed that involve drug use, drug sales, or property crimes committed to obtain drugs, our legal system has in effect become the nation’s rehabilitation center. In reality this problem of addiction is no different from any other medical ailment, and often results from mental and physical issues facing the individual. This option of increased rehabilitation and education on the other hand focuses on this medical condition of addiction and allows for a progressive care system that empowers the individual. Groups like the RAND Corp support this idea, and through a 1994 Benefit Cost Analysis stated, “economically, groups and individuals receive 7x more benefit from treatment opposed incarceration”. These statistics can be reviewed today even in a setting of prohibition with the creation of things like drug courts and probate sentencing which allow for a shift from traditional punishment to education.
Policy alternative three focuses mainly on the current system operating in California. With the passing of Proposition 215, Californians have essentially rescheduled Cannabis in order to allow medicinal use as prescribed by doctors. This in turn has allowed many people to openly use marijuana and has allowed law enforcement officers to focus their attention to more urgent matters. Also economically, this policy makes sense due to the concept of economic incentive. Ending this prohibition of drugs has provided an economic incentive, and it’s in the United States best interest to alter policy in order to take advantage of this massive transfer of wealth happening on the black market. In a true capitalistic system, any good or service that creates a demand will always have a supply. Therefore, a government policy of taxation coupled with its regulation is an option to consider in order to take advantage of this illicit tax revenue source. The medicinal outlet is a great way to regulate use, due to the fact a prescription is needed, and dispensaries regulate who is able to purchase these substances. In the current system the incentives for illegal activity are high. Many people are able to sell small amounts of drugs for large amounts of profit. This has allowed for an increase in suppliers or “drug dealers”, and in turned increased the amount of drugs on the streets. In a purely economical sense the incentives caused by the products illegality and prohibition have in effect furthered the supply on the streets. Although legalization arguably would initially increase users, therefore increasing the supply and lowering the price due to simple economics, the long term is a much different story.
The last policy option is the concept of decriminalization. Decriminalization allows for a small amount of drugs to be possessed by an individual, yet it keeps issues like drug trafficking and selling illegal. There have been many benefits to this model of policy and enforcement in multiple countries worldwide. For example, since Holland’s decriminalization of marijuana, the rates of use in adults and teens while initially increased have been consistently lower per capita than their counterpart in the USA(EMCDDA). This is accredited to essentially making cannabis “boring”. Countries surrounding Holland also seem to be following suit as well. Lunau argues that Germany, Holland’s neighbor, seems to agree and in “Berlin [they are] set to launch a new marijuana policy that would make it legal to possess up to 15 grams (half an ounce) of marijuana.” (Lanau) This shows that the Germans are in a sense taking the Amsterdam example and adopting it to fit their locality. The issue with decriminalization is that it does not take the product out of the hands of the black market, it just allows it to exist and doesn’t tackle the problem. Drug use is still pushed underground and given a negative connotation. Alternatively, the benefit from this change in policy would come not in the form of revenue, but money saved in the cost of arresting, policing, and interdicting drug use. Because drug crimes make up most of the incarcerations in the United States, we could essentially redirect resources to issues more relevant in the current society.
Finally, one must ask what is the benefit of a policy that is impossible to enforce. Judge James Gray argues that within the United States, drugs are so prevalent that even people who are incarcerated use and sell these illicit substances. If law enforcement shows the inability to enforce these laws on prisoners in which they control every aspect of life, how can they possibly control free society’s drug use and supply without first legalizing this substance.
III. Projected Outcomes
Listed above are the alternative policy options that are currently being proposed in dealing with the issue of drug use and abuse within the United States of America. Although each policy option is essentially different in concept and theory, they may play interdependent roles in determining the best option or options needed to update our current policy problems. Beginning to understand what effects and outcomes each of these individual options will have on the nation is the first step in deciding which direction to take and eventually what outcome will have the highest net benefit.
A. Option 1 – Legalization: This policy alternative is very drastic in its broad view of drug legalization including not just soft drugs, but also harder drugs like heroin and cocaine. Public opinion on this option differs, yet arguably this policy change may have the largest effect on drug use and the crimes associated with it. To begin, the largest noticeable aspect of change would be the massive budget changes resulting in new policing and enforcement policies and the new ability for taxation. According to Economics Professor Jeffery Miron in his report “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibiton”, this change would take place in three different ways; “the reduction in police resources from elimination of arrest; the reduction in prosecutorial and judicial resources from elimination of prosecutions; and the reduction in correctional resources from elimination of incarcerations”(Miron). He also asserts that “the USA would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually” (Miron). Note that these figures are for marijuana cost alone and do not take into account the other costs of drug enforcement. Similarly, this idea can be verified simply by looking at the raw cost of incarceration of our drug offenders. According to the American Corrections Association, “the average daily cost per state prison inmate per day in the US is $67.55. State prisons held 253,300 inmates for drug offenses in 2007. That means states spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year”(American Correctional Association p.21). The problem with quantifying this figure with a dollar sign is that often it does not factor in the many unseen cost. For example, many economists would argue that these reports do not factor in things like the true economic cost of the imprisonment of such a large section of the population, and the cost of policing these crimes opposed to more violent crimes like rape and murder. Other positive effects of drug legalization that would be seen may not be as noticeable as the large increases in available enforcement funds, but play a large role in the net benefit of this policy change. First, young people’s ability to obtain drugs would be severely restricted due to increased governmental regulations similar to those currently in effect for cigarettes and alcohol. Licensed sellers would have the ability to take the control out of the black market, therefore limiting minor access – similar to alcohol. Next, these changes that come with the legitimacy of drugs would allow for the prices to drop and the purity to rise due to government regulation and production. For the most part, drug crime is the result of addicts looking to supplement their income due to the need to play these falsely inflated prices for drugs. With regulation, price drops and purity increases, therefore drug users would then be able to support themselves financially and not worry about dirty drugs causing overdoses or death.
B. Option 2 – Keeping drugs illegal / Increasing rehabilitation: The proposed outcome of this alternative is difficult to analyze due to the fact that many disagree about the best method to lower prison rates in the US. Many proponents feel that rehabilitation and the use of drug courts is much more fiscally responsible due to the cost/benefit analysis models and the overwhelming positive recidivism rates associated. This cost vs. benefit can be seen overall in adult drug courts in the US which receive around $2.21 in benefit to every $1.00 spent for a net societal benefit of about 624 million”(Bhati, Roman, and Chalfin). The current penal system focuses on punishment-based methods in order to curve drug use and supply, yet arguably this policy is a fiscally and morally irresponsible method of accomplishing such efforts. In the report "Recidivism Rates For Drug Court Graduates: National Based Estimates" which was published by the Urban Institute and Caliber Associates they state, “in over 17,000 annual drug court graduates nationwide, [they] found that recidivism rates for drug court participants one year after graduation is a mere 16.5% and only 27.5% after two years”. They also assert that “In a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 graduates from 95 different drug courts, the average re-arrest rate was only about 16% in the first year after leaving the program and 27% after the second year (Roman, Townsend, and Bhati).
C. Option 3 – Decriminalization/ Medicinal Drug use: The idea of decriminalizing drugs is not a new one, and can be seen throughout different countries and even currently in some states within the Union. Most people immediately think of places like Holland’s Amsterdam when they think of decriminalization, and generally that is a good model to exemplify. According to the EMCDDA, Holland focuses its drug policy with four major objectives that are; to prevent drug use and rehabilitate, reduce public harm, diminish public nesciences such as drug users, and to combat production and trafficking of drugs. Although marijuana and other soft drugs are not legal within the Netherlands, they are tolerated and sold in coffee shops throughout the city. This model is problematic due to many factors, yet the most noticeable being the fact that it keeps almost all aspects of the drug trade underground. Because it does not regulate the sellers, producers, and traffickers it still maintains a sense of illegitimacy and therefore provides a black market for the substances. This situation is similar, although not exact, of Medical Marijuana in the state of California. Although California has legalized dispensaries similar to the coffee shops in Amsterdam, they have yet to take the black market out of the equation. Because these drugs are produced illicitly, the government has no ability to regulate them through outlets like the FDA. This is problematic on many levels, but arguably the biggest issue comes down to lost government revenue and ability to control these substances like option one allows. The benefits of this model are similar to alternative two dealing with increased rehabilitation availability and acceptability and alternative one with decreased enforcement spending on arresting users.
IV. Professional Recommendation for Policy Alternative Options: My personal recommendation in dealing with the USA’s drug policy issues and its future reform would be to focus on Alternative One, yet not discrediting the other options and their individual benefits like increased rehabilitation and education. By legalizing drugs, you can then begin to tackle the issues that have been plaguing this policy since its inception - dealing with the illegitimate nature of the industry. By legitimizing these substances you most importantly eliminate the profitability in which the drug cartels and black markets have, better regulating the substances sale and production resulting in a better safer product. Also, this would allow research development and studies into the medicinal aspect and benefits of these substances that are currently illegal. There are other benefits not mentioned in the report regarding legalization as well, such as ending prison over crowdedness, political stabilization of drug production countries, stemming disease transmission like HIV/AIDS, and reducing official corruption dealing with drugs. With alternative one, you must also take into considerations the benefits and other aspects of options two and three. Although option two is flawed in dealing with enforcement due to cost, its idea of the benefits of rehabilitation and drug courts must play a large role in legalization of drugs. Like other legal substances such as Alcohol and Cigarettes, drugs do hold potential for addiction, and because of this society must place a large emphasis on understanding the benefits of rehabilitation and implementing those practices before one turns to incarceration. By utilizing aspects of both of these options I feel that the United States can maximize its effectiveness in reducing the demand of drugs through education and the supply of illegal drugs within its borders through legalization and drug legitimacy.
A. Political Feasibility – Will it work: The main issue when dealing with this policy suggestion is the political feasibility or the ability for this policy change to come into effect. Drug policy is very complicated in the United States due to the fact that we have been waging a figurative and literal war against drugs for most of the last century. This in a sense has conditioned the public to believe that some substances are bad while others aren’t; e.g.: Cannabis and Cocaine vs. Alcohol and Cigarettes. In effect this will be the hardest obstacle to circumnavigate and essentially requires public education on what is the truth and what is propaganda that has been presented as scare tactics against drug use. Political actors will have a hard time changing their political views on the issue, yet I feel that American and world sentiment towards the issue is changing in a trend towards a rational drug policy instead of prohibition. Also, Taxation is another issue that needs to be addressed. Because of the current illegality of drugs, there is no taxation levied against the substances. With the new policy alternatives, taxation would be a major aspect of revue and one risks loosing money by setting these tax rates to high. By setting unreasonable taxes, the industry would once again risk being pushed underground in order to get past those regulations. Taxation is another issue that needs to be addressed. Because of the current illegality of drugs, there is no taxation levied against the substances. With the new policy alternatives, taxation would be a major aspect of revue and one risks loosing money by setting these tax rates to high. By setting unreasonable taxes, the industry would once again risk being pushed underground in order to get past those regulations.
B. Policy Implementation – The implementation of this policy change is crucial in understanding the effect it will have. I personally feel like the American public is ready for a comprehensive drug policy change repealing prohibition – similar to the policy in repealing alcohol prohibition. The question is how broadly do you enact this policy, and if it should be on all drugs or just a certain group. These are all questions that are important in deciding what is possible and what isn’t.
Citations
Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison, Prisoners in 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. August 2001; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Quick Facts and Statistics, www.bop.gov.
Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison, Prisoners in 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. August 2001. See tables 17, 19.
American Correctional Association, 2006 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole Authorities, 67th Edition (Alexandria, VA: ACA, 2006), p. 16; Sabol, William J., PhD, and West, Heather C., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2008), NCJ224280, p. 21, Appendix Table 10.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p07.pdf
Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008, April). To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
C.P Rydell and S.S. Everingham, RAND Corporation Drug Policy Research Center, Controlling Cocaine, prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Army. Santa Monica, CA. 1994
EMCDDA:National report 2007: Netherlands
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu
Jennifer C. Karberg and Allen J. Beck, “Trends in U.S. Correctional Populations: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics,” presented at the National Committee on Community Corrections, Washington, D.C., April 16, 2004.
Lunau, Kate. "Berlin Gets Higher...and Higher." Maclean's, 123.21 (2010): 43.
Miron, Jeffrey A. (June 2005). "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition". The Marijuana Policy Project. Retrieved 2010-07-19 http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
"New Incarceration Figures: Thirty-Three Consecutive Years of Growth" (PDF). Sentencing Project. December 2006. Retrieved 2007-06-10.
QEV Analytics, "National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIII: Teens and Parents" (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2008), p. 17 and Figure 3.P.
http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/380-2008 Teen Survey Repo...
Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A. S. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimate - Final report. Washington DC: The Urban Institute and Caliber.
Ross, Sherwood. "Obama Signals End to Failed 'War on Drugs.'." Long Term View, 7.2 (2010): 89-91.
World Prison Brief - Highest to Lowest Figures. International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London.
Georgia State University
Executive Summary
Decisions made by the United States government on how they handle the growing issue of drug use and abuse and specifically the issue of prohibition will have a profound effect on the drug use, incarceration rates, recidivism rates, and tax revenues.
A study conducted by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center for the U.S. Army and the ONDCP found that treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine [and other drugs] in the United States. (Rydell & Everingham) Additional evidence reinforcing this failed policy found that “every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7, and that additional domestic law enforcement costs 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in drug abuse and related social costs”.( Rydell & Everingham) While these cost are generally focused on government expenditure, many studies do not take in to account the economic opportunity cost of the high rates of incarceration and cost of that incarceration has on the general population.
Throughout the research conducted, evidence consistently led one to suggest that the best policy options regarding this issue are among the following:
• Legalize Drugs/Drug Use/Selling drugs/Manufacturing etc
• Keep Drugs Illegal – modify policy from punishment to rehabilitation
• Doctor approved drug use – e.g. Medical Marijuana
• Decriminalization - similar policy to places like Holland
Note: These options offer a start difference in drug policy. Many believe that there is no right or wrong answer, but that the best choice is a mixture of the above choices. By evaluating these options, their feasibility, and the public opinion for each, you can then narrow your options.
I. Drug Use and Abuse Policy Review
Through detailed observations and analysis, I am making a recommendation that a policy review takes place dealing with the continued issue of prohibition of illicit substances in the United States. Focus groups and surveys of the American public have made it apparent that we need to update our policy regarding the classification of drugs, prosecutions of drug use, and the viable use of rehabilitation opposed to incarceration – all due to the changing public opinion of drugs as a whole. Also by legitimizing this industry, we could begin to see legitimate monetary benefits from increases in education, government regulation, and taxation – all of which are currently being forfeited by government entities due to black-market monopolization.
The war on drugs began with a push by the United States beginning in 1969 under President Richard Nixon - later continued under President Regan. The mission of this war was not only eliminating drugs coming into the USA from foreign entities, but it also aimed at incarcerating domestic suppliers and users. Although this policy of punishment seems to work on first examination, it has essentially led to the USA having the highest prison incarceration rate per capita in world. According to the World Prison Brief, “new figures represent a record 33-year continuous rise in the number of inmates in the U.S.”(World Prison Brief) The current incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 residents places the United States first in the world in this regard. Russia had previously rivaled the U.S., but [now has] a current rate of incarceration of 611 per 100,000. Rates of incarceration per 100,000 for other industrialized nations include Australia - 126, Canada - 107, England/Wales - 148, France - 85, and Japan – 62” (The Sentancing Project). Another startling figure deals with rates of incarceration due to drug use. According to the Bureau of Prisons, “as of March 2001, federal drug offenders constituted 56.3% of the total federal prison population”, (Beck & Harrison) and “between 1990 and 1999 drug cases represented a 60.9% increase in federal prison growth”. (Beck & Harrison -Tables 17,19) These drug cases range from things like simple possession, dealing, property crimes, and violent crimes. Furthermore, examples of incarceration rates show a direct correlation of public opinion regarding - not only the failing of prohibition, but the ineffectiveness of law enforcement agencies at enforcing these laws aimed at combating drug use. It is argued that with such a large percentage of the population using drugs, it in effect has changed public opinion regarding the substances. Does the public feel like this should still be a punishable crime, and do our current laws enforce apathy towards common law? These are all questions we must ask as policy decision makers.
Although drug usage in the United States is gradually increasing, the real policy issue at hand is the inability for government agencies to educate, regulate, and collect revenue and issue tax on these products. Because Marijuana and other drugs are still illegal, it is hard to know how much revenue is made off these substances, but estimates are in the 25-60 billion dollar range annually for marijuana alone. Essentially, there is a multi billion-dollar industry being monopolized by the black market, which in turn is limiting the funds that would be accessible to state, and federal tax revenues. This information is even more interesting when you take into account the percentage rate of people who favor legalization. According to polls from ABC New/Washington Post/Time & CNN, “46% of Americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana for personal use,” and similarly, 14 states to date have legalized medicinal marijuana with approval from a physician. This shows the large attitude change in the state, and although they had yet to secure the majority it shows the changing tides in America. Currently in California, groups are working to enact legislation such as Proposition 19 or The Regulate, Control and Tax Marijuana Act of 2010. “ The proposed bill of Representative Tom Ammiano regarding the legalization of the sale of marijuana in California [tackles that issue]. The legislator explained that legalizing the drug would provide the state more than $1 billion annually in tax. He [also] proposed that an ounce of marijuana must have a tax of $50. However, it is noted that the bill may face legal challenge because the federal law considers possessing or selling marijuana a crime. Alternatively, opponents of legalization often cite increased drug use as the result of legalization but in actuality, substances are able to be regulated much better when they are taken off the streets and placed in a setting like a pharmacy or a storefront where you can monitor the sales and taxation. This can be seen in places like Amsterdam where decriminalization of small amounts of drugs has actually led to decreased drug usage among its population. (EMCDDA)
Another issue facing this policy re-evaluation is education reform. Education reform is needed if society plans on combating drug use, and it arguably plays one of the largest roles in keeping individuals from trying drugs (specifically children). Also, it plays a huge role in the rehabilitation of addicts who often need extraneous help. By working to focus policy creation on education and rehabilitation we could have the ability to affect the rates of success in limiting new addiction. A study conducted by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center for the U.S. Army and the ONDCP found that “treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine [and other drugs] in the United States” (Rydell & Everingham). The same study found that “every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7, and that additional domestic law enforcement costs 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in drug abuse and related social costs”(Rydell & Everingham). This example shows a direct correlation to the issues of cost-benefits specifically whether or not our current policy is not only fiscally responsible but if it is morally objective to the citizens in our communities.
II. Alternatives and Criteria
Below are the details of the possible alternative policy options in regards to the current drug use and abuse problem within the United States. While focusing mainly on policy reform regarding legalization, this section also works to elaborate on the current policy goals and effects being discussed when dealing with the reaction to regulation by the government, education and rehabilitation of offenders, and most importantly, the economic incentives which present themselves once the black market aspect of the product is removed. The best method to achieve these goals can be argued but during my research I have had narrowed the selections of policy alternatives to four basic choices.
These are:
1. Full or Broad Legalization of drugs
2. Keep Illegal – focus on rehabilitation and education
3. Allow easier doctor control – Medicinally administer to patients
4. Decriminalization
The main idea that supports the current policy of drug prohibition enacted in the United States is the concept that making something illegal can stem its demand. Not only has been proven incorrect, it results can easily be seen inversely in the United States historically with the results of prohibition of alcohol and also via increasing current incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenders. Also, many people argue that these illegal substance abuse issues facing the American public are much different from the legal substance abuse problems like cigarettes and alcohol – that these products are illegal for a reason. This difference is reality is actually very minuscule, and cigarettes kill many more people each year than products like marijuana, cocaine, and heroin respectively (See graph on pg 7). Although these products do impair, it all comes down to personal responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions when they are affecting public safety. A perfect legal example of that would be the ability to drink a glass of wine (or 10) without any repercussions, yet once you get behind the wheel of a car it becomes a public issue that requires public action.
The idea of regulation is one policy option that legalization allows to take place. The policy of prohibition basically is counterintuitive in the idea that once you make a product illegal, you eliminate all ability to control that substance. Once you are able to remove the product from the black market by legalization and regulation, you can then work to control its purity, price, age limits for sale, and all other aspects of production. Not only would this regulate the process and factors of productions, it would also allow the government to control the retail of the product and hold the sellers accountable. Also this regulation would allow for safer drug consumption because now users are able to get pharmaceutical grade products at medical prices and doses without risking the chance of overdose due to impurity and also without having to commit crimes to support their habit. Opponents also argue that by legalizing drugs we would risk increasing children’s exposure and the substance’s availability, yet this too is questionable due to the fact that once you remove the product from the hands of criminals, you then place it in legitimate retail facilities which then allow for age verification in a situation similar to alcohol that is impossible with the black market. In fact, the results of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2008 showed estimates of the US population aged 12 and over who admit to using substances and their availability, and “In 2008, CASA reported that 25% said cigarettes, 23% said marijuana, 19% said prescription drugs, 15% said beer, and 7% said it was the same for all.”(QEV) This shows a sharp distinction in the availability of these substances and the direct correlation with their legality.
Another similar policy option deals with keeping the drug scheduling as is, and instead focusing on the complete overhauling of the rehabilitation and education system the United States in order to better suit the needs of the consumer. The Obama administration has in fact began to end the so-called “War on Drugs” instead focusing US federal policy on prevention and harm reduction, and according to Ross this is the right response, and “drug legalization allows the government to deal with drug cartels accordingly and reduce prison populations. (Ross) Many issues are facing these addicts, yet arguably one of the most counter effective policies in place is the idea of rehabilitation by incarceration. Because there are so many crimes committed that involve drug use, drug sales, or property crimes committed to obtain drugs, our legal system has in effect become the nation’s rehabilitation center. In reality this problem of addiction is no different from any other medical ailment, and often results from mental and physical issues facing the individual. This option of increased rehabilitation and education on the other hand focuses on this medical condition of addiction and allows for a progressive care system that empowers the individual. Groups like the RAND Corp support this idea, and through a 1994 Benefit Cost Analysis stated, “economically, groups and individuals receive 7x more benefit from treatment opposed incarceration”. These statistics can be reviewed today even in a setting of prohibition with the creation of things like drug courts and probate sentencing which allow for a shift from traditional punishment to education.
Policy alternative three focuses mainly on the current system operating in California. With the passing of Proposition 215, Californians have essentially rescheduled Cannabis in order to allow medicinal use as prescribed by doctors. This in turn has allowed many people to openly use marijuana and has allowed law enforcement officers to focus their attention to more urgent matters. Also economically, this policy makes sense due to the concept of economic incentive. Ending this prohibition of drugs has provided an economic incentive, and it’s in the United States best interest to alter policy in order to take advantage of this massive transfer of wealth happening on the black market. In a true capitalistic system, any good or service that creates a demand will always have a supply. Therefore, a government policy of taxation coupled with its regulation is an option to consider in order to take advantage of this illicit tax revenue source. The medicinal outlet is a great way to regulate use, due to the fact a prescription is needed, and dispensaries regulate who is able to purchase these substances. In the current system the incentives for illegal activity are high. Many people are able to sell small amounts of drugs for large amounts of profit. This has allowed for an increase in suppliers or “drug dealers”, and in turned increased the amount of drugs on the streets. In a purely economical sense the incentives caused by the products illegality and prohibition have in effect furthered the supply on the streets. Although legalization arguably would initially increase users, therefore increasing the supply and lowering the price due to simple economics, the long term is a much different story.
The last policy option is the concept of decriminalization. Decriminalization allows for a small amount of drugs to be possessed by an individual, yet it keeps issues like drug trafficking and selling illegal. There have been many benefits to this model of policy and enforcement in multiple countries worldwide. For example, since Holland’s decriminalization of marijuana, the rates of use in adults and teens while initially increased have been consistently lower per capita than their counterpart in the USA(EMCDDA). This is accredited to essentially making cannabis “boring”. Countries surrounding Holland also seem to be following suit as well. Lunau argues that Germany, Holland’s neighbor, seems to agree and in “Berlin [they are] set to launch a new marijuana policy that would make it legal to possess up to 15 grams (half an ounce) of marijuana.” (Lanau) This shows that the Germans are in a sense taking the Amsterdam example and adopting it to fit their locality. The issue with decriminalization is that it does not take the product out of the hands of the black market, it just allows it to exist and doesn’t tackle the problem. Drug use is still pushed underground and given a negative connotation. Alternatively, the benefit from this change in policy would come not in the form of revenue, but money saved in the cost of arresting, policing, and interdicting drug use. Because drug crimes make up most of the incarcerations in the United States, we could essentially redirect resources to issues more relevant in the current society.
Finally, one must ask what is the benefit of a policy that is impossible to enforce. Judge James Gray argues that within the United States, drugs are so prevalent that even people who are incarcerated use and sell these illicit substances. If law enforcement shows the inability to enforce these laws on prisoners in which they control every aspect of life, how can they possibly control free society’s drug use and supply without first legalizing this substance.
III. Projected Outcomes
Listed above are the alternative policy options that are currently being proposed in dealing with the issue of drug use and abuse within the United States of America. Although each policy option is essentially different in concept and theory, they may play interdependent roles in determining the best option or options needed to update our current policy problems. Beginning to understand what effects and outcomes each of these individual options will have on the nation is the first step in deciding which direction to take and eventually what outcome will have the highest net benefit.
A. Option 1 – Legalization: This policy alternative is very drastic in its broad view of drug legalization including not just soft drugs, but also harder drugs like heroin and cocaine. Public opinion on this option differs, yet arguably this policy change may have the largest effect on drug use and the crimes associated with it. To begin, the largest noticeable aspect of change would be the massive budget changes resulting in new policing and enforcement policies and the new ability for taxation. According to Economics Professor Jeffery Miron in his report “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibiton”, this change would take place in three different ways; “the reduction in police resources from elimination of arrest; the reduction in prosecutorial and judicial resources from elimination of prosecutions; and the reduction in correctional resources from elimination of incarcerations”(Miron). He also asserts that “the USA would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually” (Miron). Note that these figures are for marijuana cost alone and do not take into account the other costs of drug enforcement. Similarly, this idea can be verified simply by looking at the raw cost of incarceration of our drug offenders. According to the American Corrections Association, “the average daily cost per state prison inmate per day in the US is $67.55. State prisons held 253,300 inmates for drug offenses in 2007. That means states spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year”(American Correctional Association p.21). The problem with quantifying this figure with a dollar sign is that often it does not factor in the many unseen cost. For example, many economists would argue that these reports do not factor in things like the true economic cost of the imprisonment of such a large section of the population, and the cost of policing these crimes opposed to more violent crimes like rape and murder. Other positive effects of drug legalization that would be seen may not be as noticeable as the large increases in available enforcement funds, but play a large role in the net benefit of this policy change. First, young people’s ability to obtain drugs would be severely restricted due to increased governmental regulations similar to those currently in effect for cigarettes and alcohol. Licensed sellers would have the ability to take the control out of the black market, therefore limiting minor access – similar to alcohol. Next, these changes that come with the legitimacy of drugs would allow for the prices to drop and the purity to rise due to government regulation and production. For the most part, drug crime is the result of addicts looking to supplement their income due to the need to play these falsely inflated prices for drugs. With regulation, price drops and purity increases, therefore drug users would then be able to support themselves financially and not worry about dirty drugs causing overdoses or death.
B. Option 2 – Keeping drugs illegal / Increasing rehabilitation: The proposed outcome of this alternative is difficult to analyze due to the fact that many disagree about the best method to lower prison rates in the US. Many proponents feel that rehabilitation and the use of drug courts is much more fiscally responsible due to the cost/benefit analysis models and the overwhelming positive recidivism rates associated. This cost vs. benefit can be seen overall in adult drug courts in the US which receive around $2.21 in benefit to every $1.00 spent for a net societal benefit of about 624 million”(Bhati, Roman, and Chalfin). The current penal system focuses on punishment-based methods in order to curve drug use and supply, yet arguably this policy is a fiscally and morally irresponsible method of accomplishing such efforts. In the report "Recidivism Rates For Drug Court Graduates: National Based Estimates" which was published by the Urban Institute and Caliber Associates they state, “in over 17,000 annual drug court graduates nationwide, [they] found that recidivism rates for drug court participants one year after graduation is a mere 16.5% and only 27.5% after two years”. They also assert that “In a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 graduates from 95 different drug courts, the average re-arrest rate was only about 16% in the first year after leaving the program and 27% after the second year (Roman, Townsend, and Bhati).
C. Option 3 – Decriminalization/ Medicinal Drug use: The idea of decriminalizing drugs is not a new one, and can be seen throughout different countries and even currently in some states within the Union. Most people immediately think of places like Holland’s Amsterdam when they think of decriminalization, and generally that is a good model to exemplify. According to the EMCDDA, Holland focuses its drug policy with four major objectives that are; to prevent drug use and rehabilitate, reduce public harm, diminish public nesciences such as drug users, and to combat production and trafficking of drugs. Although marijuana and other soft drugs are not legal within the Netherlands, they are tolerated and sold in coffee shops throughout the city. This model is problematic due to many factors, yet the most noticeable being the fact that it keeps almost all aspects of the drug trade underground. Because it does not regulate the sellers, producers, and traffickers it still maintains a sense of illegitimacy and therefore provides a black market for the substances. This situation is similar, although not exact, of Medical Marijuana in the state of California. Although California has legalized dispensaries similar to the coffee shops in Amsterdam, they have yet to take the black market out of the equation. Because these drugs are produced illicitly, the government has no ability to regulate them through outlets like the FDA. This is problematic on many levels, but arguably the biggest issue comes down to lost government revenue and ability to control these substances like option one allows. The benefits of this model are similar to alternative two dealing with increased rehabilitation availability and acceptability and alternative one with decreased enforcement spending on arresting users.
IV. Professional Recommendation for Policy Alternative Options: My personal recommendation in dealing with the USA’s drug policy issues and its future reform would be to focus on Alternative One, yet not discrediting the other options and their individual benefits like increased rehabilitation and education. By legalizing drugs, you can then begin to tackle the issues that have been plaguing this policy since its inception - dealing with the illegitimate nature of the industry. By legitimizing these substances you most importantly eliminate the profitability in which the drug cartels and black markets have, better regulating the substances sale and production resulting in a better safer product. Also, this would allow research development and studies into the medicinal aspect and benefits of these substances that are currently illegal. There are other benefits not mentioned in the report regarding legalization as well, such as ending prison over crowdedness, political stabilization of drug production countries, stemming disease transmission like HIV/AIDS, and reducing official corruption dealing with drugs. With alternative one, you must also take into considerations the benefits and other aspects of options two and three. Although option two is flawed in dealing with enforcement due to cost, its idea of the benefits of rehabilitation and drug courts must play a large role in legalization of drugs. Like other legal substances such as Alcohol and Cigarettes, drugs do hold potential for addiction, and because of this society must place a large emphasis on understanding the benefits of rehabilitation and implementing those practices before one turns to incarceration. By utilizing aspects of both of these options I feel that the United States can maximize its effectiveness in reducing the demand of drugs through education and the supply of illegal drugs within its borders through legalization and drug legitimacy.
A. Political Feasibility – Will it work: The main issue when dealing with this policy suggestion is the political feasibility or the ability for this policy change to come into effect. Drug policy is very complicated in the United States due to the fact that we have been waging a figurative and literal war against drugs for most of the last century. This in a sense has conditioned the public to believe that some substances are bad while others aren’t; e.g.: Cannabis and Cocaine vs. Alcohol and Cigarettes. In effect this will be the hardest obstacle to circumnavigate and essentially requires public education on what is the truth and what is propaganda that has been presented as scare tactics against drug use. Political actors will have a hard time changing their political views on the issue, yet I feel that American and world sentiment towards the issue is changing in a trend towards a rational drug policy instead of prohibition. Also, Taxation is another issue that needs to be addressed. Because of the current illegality of drugs, there is no taxation levied against the substances. With the new policy alternatives, taxation would be a major aspect of revue and one risks loosing money by setting these tax rates to high. By setting unreasonable taxes, the industry would once again risk being pushed underground in order to get past those regulations. Taxation is another issue that needs to be addressed. Because of the current illegality of drugs, there is no taxation levied against the substances. With the new policy alternatives, taxation would be a major aspect of revue and one risks loosing money by setting these tax rates to high. By setting unreasonable taxes, the industry would once again risk being pushed underground in order to get past those regulations.
B. Policy Implementation – The implementation of this policy change is crucial in understanding the effect it will have. I personally feel like the American public is ready for a comprehensive drug policy change repealing prohibition – similar to the policy in repealing alcohol prohibition. The question is how broadly do you enact this policy, and if it should be on all drugs or just a certain group. These are all questions that are important in deciding what is possible and what isn’t.
Citations
Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison, Prisoners in 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. August 2001; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Quick Facts and Statistics, www.bop.gov.
Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison, Prisoners in 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. August 2001. See tables 17, 19.
American Correctional Association, 2006 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole Authorities, 67th Edition (Alexandria, VA: ACA, 2006), p. 16; Sabol, William J., PhD, and West, Heather C., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2008), NCJ224280, p. 21, Appendix Table 10.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p07.pdf
Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008, April). To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
C.P Rydell and S.S. Everingham, RAND Corporation Drug Policy Research Center, Controlling Cocaine, prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Army. Santa Monica, CA. 1994
EMCDDA:National report 2007: Netherlands
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu
Jennifer C. Karberg and Allen J. Beck, “Trends in U.S. Correctional Populations: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics,” presented at the National Committee on Community Corrections, Washington, D.C., April 16, 2004.
Lunau, Kate. "Berlin Gets Higher...and Higher." Maclean's, 123.21 (2010): 43.
Miron, Jeffrey A. (June 2005). "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition". The Marijuana Policy Project. Retrieved 2010-07-19 http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
"New Incarceration Figures: Thirty-Three Consecutive Years of Growth" (PDF). Sentencing Project. December 2006. Retrieved 2007-06-10.
QEV Analytics, "National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIII: Teens and Parents" (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2008), p. 17 and Figure 3.P.
http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/380-2008 Teen Survey Repo...
Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A. S. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimate - Final report. Washington DC: The Urban Institute and Caliber.
Ross, Sherwood. "Obama Signals End to Failed 'War on Drugs.'." Long Term View, 7.2 (2010): 89-91.
World Prison Brief - Highest to Lowest Figures. International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London.
MoldyFrogToe
Member
Did you already hand it in and get it back? Sometimes they search the netz for textzzzz to make sure it wasnt plagiarized
I
In~Plain~Site
No citations from NORML ?
I
In~Plain~Site
True, but any progressive, cutting edge policy would have to include their input and should be at least represented in the piece.
GL
GL
