- Information
- AI Chat
Essay " s. rolles, ‘an alternative to the war on drugs’, british medical journal,341: 127-8. (2010)" - grade 68
Contemporary Issues in Law and Justice (LAW133)
University of Sheffield
Recommended for you
Preview text
A review of S. Rolles, alternative to the war on British Medical Journal, 341: (2010) The War on Drugs refers to the prohibition of drug use, supply and production and is a highly contentious issue which has stirred much debate. Global drug policy is strongly influenced a prohibitionist approach, which has turned concerns about drug related harms into a moral crusade. Opponents to the drug war policy like Stephen Rolles argue that prohibition has created more problems than it has solved and believe decriminalisation, legalization and regulation of non medical drugs are the solution to reducing drug related harms. Firstly, Rolles discusses the growing evidence and consensus that the current drug prohibition policy has been a failure and counterproductive. He states that this policy has worsened public health problems and created a series of secondary harms associated with the criminal market such as organised crime and corruption of Governments. Rolles references the shifting goals of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime from a free to a of the drug problem, thus demonstrating the of Prohibition to achieve its goals. The of Prohibition is also supported authors such as MacCoun and Nadelmann, who argue that there is inconclusive evidence that prohibition is effective. However, Wilson challenges the failures of Prohibition and believes that the heroin epidemic in the where heroin was cheaply available illustrates how legalisation may be ineffective. Secondly, Rolles discusses the negative effects of Prohibition framing drugs as to society. He argues that this has resulted in drug policy enforcement being free from scrutiny and the harms of drug policy being associated with the harms of drug use itself. He argues this has justified the intensification of drug prohibition and created a hostile drug policy which ignores and suppresses critical scientific investigation or evaluation of social or health interventions. In 1 agreement with Rolles, Nadelmann argues a hostile drug policy exists because minority groups like African Americans are discriminated and petty drug offenders are incarcerated without any evaluation of human consequences. Additionally, despite being against legalisation, Wilson states that the US spends billion on law enforcement and merely billion on treatment indicating a very hostile drug policy which prioritizes persecution instead of treatment. In stark contrast to Rolles, Wilson highlights the drawbacks of drugs legalisation. Wilson argues legalisation would undermine education programmes leading users to attach no moral significance to them, as well as undermining effective treatment because a state cannot force a drug addict to attend treatment if the drug were to be legal. The validity of view is supported research, which suggests that making it a legal requirement to stay in a treatment programme decreases heroin use over the long term. Moreover, Wilson believes that when drugs are illegal, it is easier for scientists to focus on efforts to develop new drugs that can control addictions. Validity? Moreover, Rolles goes on to explain the effectiveness of the two approaches of harm reduction and decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs. He explains how they were both introduced out of sheer necessity because of the HIV epidemic, resource pressures and users rights concerns. He explicitly states that decriminalization has shown that a less harsh drug policy does not necessarily lead to increased use and cites several supporting studies to back up his point. He uses examples of decriminalisation from several jurisdictions such as Portugal, Netherlands and the US to reliably support his point that alternatives to the Prohibitionist policy can also be effective. Meanwhile, MacCoun acknowledges the success of the decriminalisation studies but argues these foreign case studies have several limitations, which reduce their usefulness. For example, he raises the point that Dutch cannabis is expensive compared to American cannabis, and thus Dutch coffee shops are an inadequate example because they fail to address the effects of scale commercial Essentially, MacCoun believes there is too little 2 Moreover, Rolles analyses and takes into consideration the successes and failures of regulating legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol, as well as medicinal drugs and Government regulated risky products. He believes drug legalisation needs to be brought in slowly and monitored very closely for adverse effects. Similarly to Rolles, MacCoun uses the example of alcohol to try to predict the future of drug legalisation. He believes legalization will reduce the prices of drugs significantly and give easier access to legal drugs. He suggests that technology can play a role in reducing the costs of drugs. However, MacCoun suggests that taxes on drugs should be low because if they were too high, it may encourage people to return to the illegal market. MacCoun agrees with Rolles about proximity and consumption being linked but believes that age controls are ineffective and cites a study to back up his point. Validity of study? Rolles opposes the view that a regulatory approach is radical because he believes it is risk guided and an evidence based which can be found in many other areas of public policy. He believes a regulatory approach must be flexible and involve a gradient more restrictive controls for more risky products may encourage the use of safer products and behaviour in the long run. He cites the example of interventions such as supporting injecting users to use a less risky approach such as smoking. He is of the opinion that prohibition has prevented these types of interventions from happening and believes focus on profit has merely encouraged the use of risky drugs. Rolles emphasises that drug regulation will fall under the responsibility of public health and Government enforcement who have the authority to issue criminal and civil sanctions to illegal activities taking place outside the regulatory framework. Also, he insists that different social groups require different approaches to regulation. In contrast, Nadelmann believes that sanctions should only be given to illegal drug sellers, and not to individuals illegally using or possessing drugs. This is in contrast to 4 Rolles, who insists sanctions should be given for all illegal activities taking place outside the regulatory framework. Nadelmann believes drug sellers should be distinguished based on their motivations whether it is only the motivation to violate drug laws or to commit crimes against others as well. For example crimes such as violent behaviour, cheating customers, selling counterfeit drugs and selling to children. He advocates harsher punishments for illegal drug sellers who attempt to defraud and endanger customers. Rolles makes no such distinction and implies all illegal drug sellers should be punished the same. Similarly, Nadelmann argues addict drug dealers should be given more lenient sentences because they are not fully responsible for their which Rolles makes no mention of. The differing arguments can be explained because Nadelmann possesses a strong moral arguing that choosing to use drugs is a human right and is not immoral or unethical if an individual does no harm to others. Thus, this is why he tries to be as compassionate as possible in his approach. However, Rolles takes an objective standpoint and does not emphasize the moral justification behind drug legalization. Overall, although possessing similar arguments, Nadelmann and Rolles are arguing at cross purposes because they disagree on the nature of sanctions in a post drug war world. On the other hand, MacCoun and Wilson oppose drug regulation primarily because they both believe legalizing drugs will have detrimental social costs. MacCoun argues it is impossible to accurately say legalization will not lead to increased use, and thus believes legalization as a policy is too risky. MacCoun stresses that increased addicts will have harmful social effects and make individuals less reliable workers and parents. Similarly, Wilson emphasizes that abusing drugs not a victimless as it has the potential to adversely affect unborn foetuses as well as children and employers as a result of neglect or carelessness. Wilson stresses that drugs like cocaine the and this illustrates how Wilson has a stronger moral view regarding drug legalization. MacCoun considers both sides of the debate saying legalisation lead to increased use while Wilson asserts that legalization will definitely increase use. Thus, position can be argued to be more valid 5 Evaluating whether his position would IMPROVE the law: (using other Authors as well) Consistency: The Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) 1971 was established to prevent the misuse of nonmedical drugs, which are known as drugs. The act created a series of offences, which include the unlawful possession, supply, production and trafficking of controlled drugs. The MDA classifies drugs into Class A, B or C and gives penalties dependant on the class involved. The MDA also includes five schedules which determine the amount of control a drug is given which ranges from schedule one which are the most stringently controlled drugs and not authorised for medical use to schedule five drugs, which pose minimal risk and are available over the counter. proposals of a availability and his five basic regulatory models for drug availability more restrictive controls for more risky products can be seen to be quite similar to the already established five schedules of the MDA. Thus, adopting Rolles position can be seen as quite consistent with existing law. Moreover, in 2013 the UK Government legalised the supply of foil to drug users to promote transition from injecting to smoking drugs like heroin. Thus, this demonstrates how Rolles position is consistent with existing law because Rolles prioritizes harm reduction and the 2013 regulation demonstrates how the UK Government is becoming more accepting of harm reduction. However, there are several areas where adopting Rolles position would be inconsistent with existing law. Firstly, the existing classification of the MDA is not based on harmfulness of drugs. For example, ecstasy is still a class A drug despite strong evidence against this decision from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Moreover, the existing classification system emits legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco despite the Government acknowledging that these legal drugs account for more health problems and deaths than illegal drugs. Lastly, under the 7 current law, the Home Secretary has authority to alter the MDA act and bring in new legislation but must consult the ACMD beforehand. However, the Home Secretary is not bound the ACMD and thus can be said to be solely responsible to make significant changes to national drug policy. As Rolles advocates for several Government enforcement agencies to work together to manage the drug trade, this suggests that adopting his position would require a major change in law. For example, perhaps the Home Secretary should be bound the decisions of the ACMD and other public health departments. Change: Furthermore, there are additional changes in law required to successfully adopt Rolles position. Firstly, as Rolles goal is an drug regulation system, this means Government bodies must be willing to be more transparent with their decision making and need to be overseen a higher body such as the Home Office. This is in reference to the criticisms of the ACMD bodies such as the Science and Technology Committee, which argue the ACMD possess flaws in the way they conduct their business. Also, the ACMD must be more willing to work with other Government departments such as the Departments of Health and Education. This ensures that drug policy goals such as drug education are continually improved input from Government bodies. Moreover, another change required is that different social groups should receive different regulatory approaches. For example, Rolles suggests a war to help drug growers in drug producing economies to make the transition into livelihoods. Under this system, a percentage of previous enforcement expenditure and revenue from drug taxes could help support alternative livelihoods. 8 Moreover, there is a strong argument that regulation protects the vulnerable people in society much more than prohibition. Prohibition encourages young people to use risky drugs of unknown strength and contaminants and brings them into contact with dangerous criminals. It encourages otherwise citizens to commit crimes to fund their drug habit and marginalizes vulnerable people discriminating against them. Black people are significantly more likely to be prosecuted for drug offences despite having a similar drug use rate as White people. 4 Meanwhile, regulation would ensure that even if minors do gain possession of drugs, they would be better protected than under prohibition as the drugs would be quality controlled and carry essential health, safety information. Studies have shown that under prohibition, poor people are more likely to be harmed their drug use Regulation offers the opportunity for tax revenue of drugs to be diverted to funding effective treatment, education and harm reduction programmes. This can greatly decrease the chances of a social class determining the level of drug related harm they experience. Overall, regulation would significantly improve the livelihoods of the most vulnerable people in society, which shows why it is a more just alternative to prohibition. Finally, the most striking reason regulation is a fairer alternative to prohibition is because it is more in line with human rights. Despite there not existing a specific right to take drugs, prohibition breaks a number of other internationally recognised rights such as the right to privacy, culture, freedom of belief and practice. goal to reduce drug use and demand is based on a moral judgement that drugs are but there is no consistent link between law and morality. For example, the activities of unsafe sex, gambling and homosexuality are deemed immoral many but are not criminalised in many countries. Thus, this shows how prohibition of drugs is a prejudiced policy and demonstrates injustice within the law. Moreover, prohibition has undermined human rights fuelling serious rights 4 Release (2013) The Numbers In Black And White: Ethnic Disparities In The Policing And Prosecution Of Drug Offences In England And Wales. 5 Hannon, L. and Cuddy, M. M. (2006) Neighborhood ecology and drug dependence mortality: an analysis of New York City census tracts, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 10 violations in drug producing regions. In many countries, torture, rape and executions are a way of life and criminal groups are allowed to get away with these crimes. Regulation would gradually decrease the income and power of criminal groups, thus showing how it would lead to less human rights violations. Overall, regulation would complement human rights and prohibition undermines it, thus illustrating why regulation is the fairer alternative. However, regulation does possess some negative effects, which mean that some groups in society will lose out. There is likely to be cuts in police and military budgets as less enforcement is needed and increased diplomatic tensions with countries that keep prohibition. Moreover, in the short term there is likely to be increases in violence as criminals fight over a shrinking drug market and vulnerable people involved in the drug trade may see their income fall significantly. Overall, adopting drug regulation is more just than prohibition because it has the potential to positively impact millions of people in proportion to the small percentage of people it would negatively impact. Practicality and Implications: It can be argued that global regulation is an impractical policy as there are many obstacles that prevent it coming into place. Firstly, the UN conventions and many global powers support prohibition and in many countries, only a minority of the population support legalization. However, there is evidence that global regulation is a feasible plan as many countries such as Netherlands, Portugal and Latin American countries have adopted decriminalisation. The decriminalisation of cannabis several US states undermines global influence of Prohibition as America started the drug war. Moreover, American citizen led initiatives have been seen to increase support for legalization and Uruguay has shown a lack of public support is not essential to introduce regulation. Finally, the 1988 UN Convention allows nations to not be bound prohibition if their courts ruled prohibition as contrary to their constitutional principles. Thus a practical way to achieve global regulation would be for nations to challenge drug prohibition on the grounds of human rights violations. 11
Essay " s. rolles, ‘an alternative to the war on drugs’, british medical journal,341: 127-8. (2010)" - grade 68
Module: Contemporary Issues in Law and Justice (LAW133)
University: University of Sheffield
- Discover more from:
