An essay-war on drugs vs harm reduction

[grecian]

A friend of mine recently wrote this...

In the Context of What is Understood About Drug Use and Supply, Assess the Competing Claims of the “War on Drugs”, and “Harm Reduction” in Terms of Their Likely Dominance of Drug Control Strategies.

Illicit drug use is an issue that has only been considered a criminal problem in the late 19th, and early 20th century. Prior to the mid nineteenth century, it was possible to purchase substances which are now considered to be class A drugs such as heroin, and cocaine, over the counter in shops. They were sold and seen as medicinal tonics by society, yet nowadays, they are the subjects of draconian criminal legislation, and there are many initiatives and strategies implemented by governments to eradicate their illegal production and abuse. This essay will first look at the history of drugs, and drug use, look at the principles of the “War on Drugs”, and “Harm Reduction” strategies, as well as looking at issues concerning class, race and social exclusion. It will take the contention that the war on drugs will be likely to dominate drug control strategies at an international level, and that harm reduction, strategies are likely to be used in partnership with this on a domestic level, in order to reduce the impact of dangerous drug use.

As has been stated in the introduction, prior to the early twentieth century, narcotic substances, such as opium and cocaine were used regularly as recreational and medicinal tonics (Inciardi, C. 1991, P.g.8). Substances such as these had been used for centuries by different cultures, yet by the 1920’s their unlicensed production, sale and consumption was criminalized. The first piece of British legislation was the 1868 “Poisons and Pharmacy Act”, which introduced measures to limit the sale of opium, and other poisons to licensed premises, to introduce a register of the sale, and labelling of the substances as poison. (Jay, M. 2002, http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Genera...dredyears.htm). Following on from this act, there came mounting pressure from social and religious groups, such as the Quakers, to ban opium and other readily available narcotics (Ibid).
Academics such as Murji (1998) argue that the main forces behind prohibition of drugs, were the medical and pharmaceutical industries, who wanted to be able to control the use of these new substances, and “moral crusaders”, who saw drug use as degenerate, detrimental to the workforce, and linked with vice. (Murji, K. 1998, P.g.52/53). Others such as David Musto, 1987, argue that drug legislation was introduced as it was associated with immigrant populations committing certain undesirable behaviour, for example opium promoting promiscuity between white Americans, and Chinese immigrants.(Musto, D 1987, in Coomber, B. 1994, P.g.86)

Perhaps the turning point in the U.k, was the international agreements of the early twentieth century, for example, the Anglo Chinese agreement of 1907, in which the British agreed to reduce opium imports to China, and the Chinese to cut opium production, and the Shanghai convention of 1909, where restriction of opium use was discussed. (Ibid). The Hague convention of 1912 was the final convention, where 12 nations agreed that use of drugs such as heroin and morphine should be limited to medicinal use. These international agreements paved the way for as Murji puts it “an international control system” (Murji, k. 1998, P.g.52). July 1916 saw the defence of the realm act, regulation 40b, which was the first parliamentary act in Britain to make the use and supply of certain narcotics an offence. Although this initially concerned members of the armed forces, whom the government feared would not perform properly on the battlefield due to their appetite for drugs, it was later extended to cover civilians in the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1920 (Murji, K. 1998, P.g.53). Following the prohibition, it would be fair to say that Britain adopted a rehabilitation approach to drug use, treating drug addicts as if they were suffering an illness (Inciardi, J. 1991, P.g189). The United States banned the recreational use of drugs in the 1914 Harrison act, and chose to adopt a punitive deterrence model to discourage the use and trafficking of drugs. (Inciardi, J.1991, P.g9). One can see from this history therefore, that the problem of drugs is essentially a socially constructed one, as there was no problem, with the use of drugs, prior to the moral panic among the public and the authorities around the time of prohibition.

Before looking at the methods employed by governments to tackle the drugs problem, it is first important to look at the problems, which the misuse of drugs cause. Due to the criminalization of the last century, there is now a huge multi million-dollar industry centred around drugs. Huge criminal gangs, who process and smuggle illicit substances around the world, inevitably control this, as it is so lucrative, and has such a huge demand, that governments can do little to control.

On a domestic level, the drugs industry is also a massive problem. Currently there are massive criminal gangs within England exploiting the £9bn illegal drugs market (Transform - http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Crime_...rohibition.htm) these gangs become involved in turf wars, violence and other illegal and harmful activities. There is also the problem of drug addicts, who are unable to afford street prices for the drugs on which they are dependant, and have to resort too secondary crime such as burglary and prostitution in order to fund their habits. (Ibid). Heroin addicts for example have health issues that need to be addressed, withdrawal from heroin can be potentially lethal and is at least potentially debilitating. In addition to these groups, there are also those who are criminalised for the possession of drugs. These individuals may be otherwise law-abiding citizens who are then prosecuted for the possession of narcotics, which could lead to their social exclusion, if one is to take the labelling theory approach, and this could make the problem worse through social stigmas. It is important to look also at the ideas of recreational use and dependence. A Recreational user may take ecstasy on a night out, because the night can be enhanced by its use, and for many is a cheaper and more pleasant alternative to alcohol, however they are not dependant on it. A dependant user could be classed as a heroin or crack cocaine user who relies on the drug to get them through everyday life.

There have been two distinct approaches that have been used to combat drug trafficking and use, the first can be referred to as the war on drugs, and the second can be termed “harm reduction strategies”. Harm reduction strategies, basically concern the use of methods designed to reduce the negative impact that drugs can cause. These may include measures such as treatment programmes for addicts, such as methadone prescriptions, or needle exchanges, where addicts are able to get clean and safe needles. They may also include education of the dangers of drugs in schools and leaflets. Britain had traditionally taken a harm reduction or treatment approach to its drug problem, viewing addicts as suffering from an illness, indeed Inciardi (1991) claims that “British policy remained committed to a public health morality for the first two thirds of the 20th century” (Inciardi, J. P.g 189), however during the 1970s, 80s and present, it has shifted more towards a prohibitionist approach (Ibid). Indeed, it was common practice in Britain until the 1960s for doctors to prescribe doses of heroin to addicts in order to prevent dangerous withdrawal symptoms (Wilson, J 1990, in Coomber, R, 1994, P.g.365). Academics such as Wilson, 1990, argue that the mini heroin epidemic in Britain in the 1960s was in part due to unscrupulous doctors, miss prescribing large doses of heroin, which was then passed on to other users, resulting in drug dependency. Virginia Berridge 1991 describes the evolution of drug control strategies in Britain as being concerned with treatment in clinics using prescribed doses of the problem drug, or a substitute. Indeed, it could be argued that this approach was effective, for example Stimpson and Oppenheimer 1982, argue that by 1969 the amount of heroin prescribed by treatment clinics was in decline, but the illegal importation of Chinese heroin caused the numbers of addicts to rise dramatically through the 70s and 80s.(Stimpson, G. and Oppenheimer, E. 1982, in Coomber, R,1994 P.g.142). Berridge claims that due to the heroin epidemic in the 1980s and the associated Aids problem, control strategies in Britain evolved into a more prohibitative approach. She highlights the 1985 government’s paper, “tackling drug misuse” as having three out of five punitive strategies within it designed to deter and punish illicit drug use. (Berridge, V. 1991, in Coomber, R.1994 P.g 155-159). Indeed today, this two pronged approach continues to dominate drug control in England, addicts are treated in clinics, and provided with clean needles, but yet penalties for drug misuse, sale or possession are harsh, in order to deter others from using them.

The United States has traditionally adopted a penal approach to drug misuse, waging a “war on Drugs”. This war has been brought to England since the 1980s and is both a worldwide, and domestic one. In terms of the worldwide war on drugs, one can look at the way in which America has entered into agreements with countries of production, such as Columbia, and Afghanistan. Its basic method involves the destruction of cocoa plants in the case of Columbian cocaine, and of poppies in the case of afghan heroin. (Transform – U.n drugs initiative review, http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Intern...aApril2002.htm) Britain too has been involved in this war, recently sending troops to Afghanistan to destroy poppies, and combat drugs lords. Inciardi, 1991 tells us of mass intelligence networks in America that were formed due to Reagan’s “war on drugs” gathering information about smuggling, and radar balloons being used to track smuggling ships and aircraft. In more recent times, there has been more emphasis on a global approach to the war on drugs, primarily under the guise of the U.N. Transform, the drug information organisation claim that the global war on drugs is in crisis, (Transform – U.n drugs initiative review, http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Intern...aApril2002.htm) . The organisation claims that despite the huge war that has been waged, the illegal drug industry is still a multi million dollar, industry, that is ever expanding (Ibid). Defoliation of crops is largely ineffective, and the worldwide war on drugs has led to human rights violations in countries such as China, where drug criminals are executed annually to celebrate the U.n anti drugs day.(Ibid). In Britain, and America the war on drugs is fought at a domestic level, through measures such as punitive sentencing, and the raiding of drug dealers. Transform argues that this domestic war is also counter productive, and may well be responsible for exacerbating the social problems caused by the illegal drugs industry by criminalising people through possession of drugs for personal use, and forcing the drugs industry deeper underground, therefore increasing prices and profits. (Transform, “Drugs and Crime, the Link is Prohibition” http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Crime_...rohibition.htm)

It is also important to discuss the idea of social control, and exclusion when looking at anti drugs policies. One could relate the way in which changes in the penal system have evolved from modernity to late modernity, to the changing nature of drug enforcement in Britain. . Young (1999), states that during the period of modernity, the emphasis on dealing with deviance was one of rehabilitation. (Young.J, 1999, P.g.60). Garland (2001) adds to this explanation of crime control in modernity by explaining that criminal acts were seen as a symptom of an “underlying pathology” (Garland.D, 2001,P.g.187). In the same way, one could argue that during modernity, i.e. up until the 70s/80s, British drug control strategies focused on treating the drug addict as a patient who needed rehabilitation. The drug addiction of a heroin addict for example is still often treated by looking at the underlying pathology. Further to this point Hazel Kemshall (2001) states that the new penal system utilises measures such as “risk management techniques”, “symbolic punishments”,” social regulation and social exclusion of the dangerous other” (Kemshall.H, and Marshall, 2001,cited in Kemshall.H, 2003,P.g27). One could definitely relate this to the more modern British approach to drug misuse, where harsh deterrent sentences are used both to punish and exclude deviant drug users and traffickers from society.

One can also draw upon the work of Nikolas rose, and his circuits of inclusion and exclusion. Rose (2000) claims that there are two circuits of control strategy present in today’s society; those of inclusion, and those of exclusion He argues that inclusive strategies control and mould our behaviour, by integrating us into circuits of inclusion in society, and exclusive strategies aim to act upon deviant behaviour by removing undesirable elements from the circuits of inclusion. (Rose.N, 2000, P.g.324). In terms of drugs strategies, an inclusive measure would be the use of rehabilitation in order to re form the deviant behaviour of the drug addict so that they were fit to be allowed back into the inclusive society. An example of an exclusive strategy concerning drugs could be the recreational drug user, jailed for possession of cocaine. This individual could be seen as an undesirable element to society and is therefore locked away. Linking in with the notion of inclusion is that of exclusion. Rose (2000) argues that the measures, which govern the inclusive members of society, also serve to exclude others. He claims that those who are excluded are also put under measures of social control, for example re training for the unemployed (Rose.N, 2000, P.g.330). He goes on to claim that there are some excluded individuals that modern society feels they cannot re train an that these people should in the view of contemporary society, be “managed” and put away where they are not a risk” (Ibid). These individuals could be the heroin addicts in today’s society. It would be fair to say that the majority of these addicts are viewed as unable to become part of normal society due to the nature of their addiction. Through methods such as methadone prescription, which comes under harm reduction strategy, it could be argued that little is being done to include these addicts. They are receiving a measured dose of a drug designed to keep their withdrawal symptoms at bay and arguably society safer, and largely left to fend for themselves, as they are often considered as being beyond help.

It is also possible to relate race, class and drugs to social exclusion and anti drug strategies. One could argue that the high proportion of black people arrested for drug offences, and the low number of black people who report to drug treatment centres shows that they are more likely to be affected by penal “war on drugs” measures, rather than harm reduction strategies. For example, black people are ten times more likely to be imprisoned for drugs offences than whites. (Urban75 website - http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html) , and the Nhs states that its anecdotal evidence suggests drug treatment programs fail to retain black users, and attrition ratesarehigh(N.T.A-forsubstanceabusewebsite - http://www.nta.nhs.uk/frameset.asp?u...chapter3_3.htm) If this is the case, then black people are indeed far more likely to be subjected to socially excluding policies. It is also interesting to look at the cannabis declassification debate. The trials for this initiative were carried out in Brixton and Lambeth, which are predominantly black, working class and fairly deprived areas. It is unlikely that such an initiative would be carried out in an affluent white middle class area such as Surbiton or Mayfair. This further demonstrates the socially exclusive nature of narcotics legislation, as I believe it demonstrates how the government viewed cannabis as a mainly black drugs problem that would not go away, and should therefore be grudgingly tolerated in deprived areas. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the authorities to a black person smoking cannabis in a white affluent area in the presence of police, compared to a white individual smoking in a black deprived area. I believe that the black person would receive a harsher punitive reprimand, as cannabis is viewed as an undesirable recreational substance, which should not be seen to be smoked in the socially inclusive affluent areas.

In terms of what the likely dominance of drug control strategies will be, it is important to look at the failings of the current systems. Currently the systems in place in the U.K and worldwide have little effect upon the availability and price of street drugs, as it is such a lucrative market with such a high demand (Drugs an crime – the link is prohibition, http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Crime_...ohibition.htm). In the U.k, anti drug strategies cost the government an estimated £1026 million in 2002/3 (Ibid) not to mention the enormous human cost (Ibid). Drug problems have even permeated prisons, and in spite of efforts to tackle drugs, there is still an ever-increasing market for them (Ibid). The Government does not seem to be taking heed of this, and continues to pursue punitive measures for even minor drug offences, as well as providing harm reduction strategies such as needle exchanges, and proposes to introduce “shooting galleries” where heroin addicts can inject in safety, much to the moral outrage of the tabloid press. Internationally, it is likely the war on drugs will continue. Currently British and American forces are engaged in combating drug barons and destroying poppy crops in Afghanistan, under the excuse of the war on terror. I argue that the likely dominance in anti drugs policy will be that the war on drugs will continue on an international level, with the use of sanctions and crop destruction to try and halt drug production at source, and on a domestic level, harm reduction strategies are likely to become more prevalent, possibly with a relaxation on punitive measures for possession of drugs. This is because there will always be a market for illicit drugs, and I believe that demand will continue to increase in spite of how tough punishments are.






BIBLIOGRAPHY.


Coomber, R (ed) (1994) “Drugs and Drug Use In Society”. Dartford; Greenwich University Press

Murji, K (1998) “Policing Drugs” Aldershot; Aldgate

Inciardi, J (ed) (1991) “The Drug Legalization Debate” London; Sage

Dorn, N. Murji, K. and South, N. (1992), “Traffickers” London; Routlege

Garland. D, (2001). “The culture of control; Crime and social order in contemporary society”. Oxford; Oxford University Press

Rose. N, (2000). “Government and control”. British Journal of Criminology. Vol 40 (2) P.g. 321-339.

Young. J, (1999). “The exclusive society; social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity”. London: Sage

Kemshall, H. (2003), chapter in Maguire, M (2003). “Crime and Justice”. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Transform Drugs website, Various Articles, - http://www.tdpf.org.uk

National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse Website - http://www.nta.nhs.uk

Urban 75 Drug legalisation Article - http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Excellent read, thanks
	Nice work.
	Nice essay
	great referencing!

[Euthanatos93420]

Bump, this is some good stuff.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thread resurrection