Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Table of Contents
Topic Overview.........................................................................................................................................2
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.....................2 Lindsay Van Luvanee Idaho State University........................................................................................................................2
Topic Overview
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. Lindsay Van Luvanee Idaho State University
The abuse of illegal drugs has been a contentious issue, both in the United States and around the world, since the mid 1800s. The controversy surrounding the abuse has been about whether it should be treated as a health concern or as a matter of criminal justice. Currently, between one half and one third of prison inmates meet the standards for drug abuse and dependency, and of those many are at risk for associated health problems. However, this doesn't resolve the questions raised about how to view illegal drug abuse. Central to this is the role of governments to either prevent or punish illegal drug abuse. This brief is designed to introduce the issues relevant to the resolution and provide resources for continued research. It has three main components. The first section provides an overview of the issues and includes and examination of key terms and resolutional analysis. The second provides a research guide to assist in further, independent research about the resolution. Finally, it provides a sample affirmative and negative case, as well as additional evidence. SECTION 1. THE DEBATE OVER ILLEGAL DRUGS This section is meant to introduce the relevant issues pertaining to the status of the abuse of illegal drugs. First, it discusses how the abuse of drugs has been treated historically, as well as the justifications for treating it as either a public health or a criminal justice issue. Second, it defines the terms of the resolution and describes the ways that these terms will likely frame the debate. Finally, it provides a couple potential strategies and case areas for both the affirmative and the negative. 1. A. OVERVIEW History of Illegal Drugs Throughout history, the purpose of drugs and the legal status of them has seemed to be in a constant state of flux. Drugs that were once used to aid in other addictions, such as cocaine have since become illegal, and other drugs that were once illegal, such as marijuana, are starting to become relics of health. The original source of drug control was that of opium in China in the mid 1800s when Chinese officials were afraid that opium addiction in the country was disrupting the strong position it had in trade. At the time China still had one of the largest populations on the planet, about ten million of which were addicted to opium, which was an import from the British. In order to counteract this unbalanced trade, China hoped to stifle the opium market within its borders. It did so by placing stiff penalties such as floggings, imprisonment, and strangulation for opium users and traffickers. Chinese officials also started confiscating opium from British ships whenever they would reach shore. Since Britain's trade of opium to China was its primary export, the British were not so willing to give up their key export to their best customer. This sparked a war between China and Britain that lasted three years until a treaty was signed that ceded Hong Kong to British rule. The prohibition of opium, however, remained intact. In 1909, the United States followed China's suit and banned the importation, possession, and smoking of opium, marking the first time in the United States that non-medical use of a substance was outlawed. It was still unregulated in the medical field and still allowed many opiates to be produced and remained widespread in homes because the medical versions were so available. Until the early 1920s, cocaine was legally imported and frequently used by pharmaceutical companies. It had many restrictions much like the ones alcohol has today. For example, it could not be sold to minors, known addicts, in large quantities, or for recreation. Due to lack of information about the way that addiction worked, it was commonly used as a cure for alcoholism and opium addiction, and could be found in household products such as Coca-Cola.
In 1920 itself, the prohibition of alcohol was enacted in the United States. Many scholars believe this came about because of a disproportionately high protestant immigrant population, large political names and interest groups that fought for temperance, and influence from nine other North American and European countries. There were many reasons for prohibitions repeal in 1933. There were vast public outcries. People believed that the role of state governments had been violated. The federal government was suffering due to lack of tax income from alcohol sales, which before prohibition, made up twenty to thirty percent of its revenue. Given the effect that the Great Depression had at the time, this was a huge factor, along with the potential job market that selling alcohol would open up. It had also become such a regulation nightmare, causing more crime than it was originally intended to help prevent. The same was true for every other country that had some form of prohibition in effect at the time, although the United States was one of the last to repeal. Prohibition was substituted with a different set of regulations on alcohol, many of which are still observed today. For example, a legal drinking age was implemented and most control over alcohol laws shifted back to the states. The laws in states vary from the time and locations from which certain types of alcohol can be purchased to penalties for failure to adhere to laws. In the 1960s Richard Nixon was elected into the presidency of the United States. Because he believed drugs to be a major health concern as well as the key to being able to access certain criminal activity, Nixon and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs dramatically overstated some drug abuse statistics in order to nip the problem in the bud and start an all out war on drugs. In 1971, Nixon declared drugs to be America's number one enemy and declared the War on Drugs. One of the first policies was the creation of the Drug Enforcement Administration in order to coordinate and streamline all other policies and efforts to be passed. President Ronald Reagan was the next to make the War on Drugs one of his top priorities. In 1986, he signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act which allocated large sums of money to drug abuse prevention and awareness, and created minimum penalties for drug offenses. Soon thereafter, President George H.W. Bush created the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which aimed to make drug use socially unacceptable and stigmatizing. The War on Drugs has focused primarily on psychoactive drugs. While the War on Drugs seems a noble cause, it has come under much scrutiny over the years for a wide variety of reasons. Some believe many of its policies to be racist based on the types of drugs that are chosen to be focused on, for example, the difference in penalties between crack and powdered cocaine. Others believe that it is simply an infeasible war to be fought, requiring more manpower and equipment around the United States policing drug labs and fields, as well as in other countries where drug crops are primarily grown, and believe these resources would be better spent elsewhere. Many others also believe that the War on Drugs exists solely to be able to suspend rights in order to streamline legal process and have the ability to maintain legitimacy while doing so. Most recently in this discrepancy between the legitimacy and failures of the War on Drugs, marijuana has taken center stage. It is estimated that marijuana started being used for its psychoactive purposes in the early 1900s as a cheap alternative to alcohol. However, in the time surrounding 1937, when marijuana was banned, the attitude surrounding it had become more negative. It was labeled as a narcotic by the federal government and first time offenders would be sentenced to anywhere from five to twenty years. Since the 1960s, movements in favor of marijuana and hemp have been on the rise. Proponents cite many advantages to the plants, including economic, durability and ecological benefits in manufacturing things like textiles, paper, and even gasoline. Advocates also cite many medicinal uses such as the nutritional value the seeds provide and the anti-nauseant and appetite enhancement properties that aid in cancer treatment. It also acts as a muscle relaxant, analgesic, anticonvulsant, anti-asthmatic, and a treatment for glaucoma. However, many opponents argue that many of the medical risks of marijuana outweigh the benefits. They argue that smoking marijuana causes lung damage, cancer, less effective immune systems, can lead to psychological dependency on the substance, and is often the stepping-stone to other addictive drugs. They also argue that there are many viable alternatives that have less harmful effects from smoke and fewer to no psychoactive properties. The use of medicinal marijuana is currently allowed in 14 states, as well as several other North American and European countries. However, in the United States, use of marijuana is still illegal on a federal level. This puts marijuana at the nexus of many different debates occurring in the United States today. It raises the question of which entities should have
the final say in how to treat drug issues, or rather, the question of federalism. It also raises the question of how illegal drugs should be treated in the first place, whether their legality trumps the potential help benefits, and vice versa. 1. B. DEFINITIONS AND RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS Overview Since there is no definitive actor provided within the resolution, this will put the terms illegal drugs, public health,and criminal justice into contention. This is because they are all legal terms of art that have very different meanings and ways of being dealt with for every governing entity. The best example of this quandary is with marijuana. It sits on the middle ground between criminal and health under many different levels of government in a wide variety of places. Within the United States alone, there are disparities between many different states and the federal government. Fourteen states currently allow medicinal use of marijuana, but it is still illegal on the federal level. Penalties also differ in severity based on different states, even down to county laws. Because of this, for example, the affirmative can argue that since there are such a wide variety of laws that treat drug abuse criminally, it is an arbitrary standard, and that is public health is a clearer way to treat it. Conversely, the negative can argue that the distinct laws treat it as required based on the abuse specific to their area of jurisdiction. Or, the affirmative can choose to focus on a specific set of laws under a specific government as a case study. Contrarily, the negative can say that the resolution only asks for the desirability of choosing ways to treat illegal drugs in a more generalized form. Abuse Definition: The term drug-abuse is a social, legal and medical construction; legally, the use of any illegal drug could be construed as drug-abuse. Medically, the use of medicines in a non-prescribed manner would be drug-abuse. And socially, using certain drugs that are not accepted by wider society, or using in a fashion that is not condoned by society is drug abuse. Thus, drinking alcohol in moderation in certain settings is not considered drug abuse, while drinking a bottle of spirits a night is; the taking of Valium prescribed by your doctor is drug not abuse, and taking the same pills if given by a friend is. Because of the value-laden nature of the term, many people talk about drug-use rather than abuse. Source: Treatment Now, accessed: 7/2/10, http://www.treatment-now.com/resources/definitions Definition (Drug Abuse): The use of a drug (either licit or illicit) in sufficient quantity and frequency to interfere with a person's ability to make sound life decisions, perform appropriate actions, and fulfill responsibilities with the result that the person is unable to be a law abiding and self-supporting individual. Source: Vermont Department of Corrections: Agency of Human Services, accessed: 7/2/10, http://www.doc.state.vt.us/about/policies/glossary_d Definition (Drug Abuse): The use of illegal drugs or the inappropriate use of legal drugs. The repeated use of drugs to produce pleasure, to alleviate stress, or to alter or avoid reality (or all three). Source: National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Drug Abuse, The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology, accessed: 7/2/10, http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/other/glossary/glossary.htm Discussion: The word abuse in the resolution could have many different meanings. The threshold for abuse of illegal drugs may vary, especially when held in the two different contexts outlined by the resolutionpublic health and criminal justice. For instance, within the realm of public health, abuse could mean once illegal drug use poses a substantive health risk (which has many different valuations in itself) or any misuse. Similarly, for criminal justice, abuse can mean use outside of legal terms, which could include any use since illegal drugs are what is in question by the resolution. However, there are more possibilities because of various legal statutes that define criminal drug use and abuse differently. Controlling the word abuse, as it is the object of the resolution, controls the way that it should be framed as either a criminal or a risky health behavior. Illegal Drugs Definition: Habit forming stimulant or narcotic substance (such as alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, or a derivative of cocoa or poppy) which produces a state of arousal, contentment, or euphoria. Continued or excessive use (called drug abuse or substance abuse) of such substances causes addiction or dependence. Thereafter any attempt to discontinue their use results in specific reactions (called withdrawal symptoms) such as sweating, vomiting, and tremors which cease when the use is resumed. Also called illegal drug where its production and/or use is prohibited. Whether a substance is legal or illegal, however, may have nothing to do with its potential for addiction or harm: alcohol and nicotine, both addictive and harmful, are legal in most countries because they generate substantial employment or government revenue through taxes.
Source: Business Dictionary, accessed 7/11/10, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/drug.html Discussion: Since the resolution doesn't specify which illegal drugs should be viewed as either a public health or criminal justice issue, it might be difficult to decide which should be included in an affirmative or negative case, and which way they should be treated. For example, the affirmative could specify certain drugs that mandate that illegal drug abuse be viewed as a public health concern, such as with intravenous drugs since they care such a high risk of HIV/AIDS and other blood diseases, and that viewing these certain drugs in that context outweighs any criminal activities that may follow. Conversely, the negative may argue that since the resolution calls for illegal drugs in their generalized form, that the affirmative must defend all illegal drugs under the frame of public health. Ought Definition: Used to indicate obligation or duty. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, accessed: 7/3/10, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ought Definition: Used to indicate advisability or prudence. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, accessed: 7/3/10, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ought Definition: Used to indicate desirability. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, accessed: 7/3/10, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ought Definition: Used to indicate probability. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, accessed: 7/3/10, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ought Discussion: This word will often imply a moral obligation to view the abuse of illegal drugs as either a public health or a criminal justice issue. In order to prove whether this moral obligation exists, both sides must go beyond the simple advantages and disadvantages of public health versus criminal justice. Since the resolution assumes governing entities, as explained in the overview, the moral obligations of different governing entities may differ. The moral obligations that should be investigated for the cases should be based in whichever government is chosen or not chosen. For example, on the affirmative,it can be argued that governments have a moral obligation to protect the welfare and health of its citizens. On the other hand, the negative can argue that governments have a duty to ensure that laws are followed. Public Health Definition: Discusses and acts on issues that affect the general health of a community. Often involves issues such as water safety, sanitation, immunizations, housing, infectious diseases and illness prevention. Source: Southcentral Foundation, accessed: 7/2/10, http://www.scf.cc/research/glossary.ak Definition: One of the efforts organised by society to protect, promote, and restore the people's health. It is the combination of sciences, skills, and beliefs that are directed to the maintenance and improvement of the health of all the people through collective or social actions. The programs, services, and institutions involved emphasise the prevention of disease and the health needs of the population as a whole. Public health activities change with changing technology and social values, but the goals remain the same: to reduce the amount of disease, premature death, and disease-produced discomfort and disability in the population. Public health is thus a social institution, a discipline, and a practice. Source: Australia's Health, 1996, accessed: 7/2/10, http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/aus/ah96/ah96-x04.html Discussion: Since public health can be defined and operates in a few different ways, it is important to find the part of it that best fits the purposes of the case being made. It is a term with goals that are in constant flux. Therefore, the negative can argue that public health is more of an arbitrary standard to evaluate the legality than that of criminal justice which has set, specific procedures with which to handle issues. Criminal Justice Definition: The system of law enforcement, the bar, the judiciary, corrections, and probation that is directly involved in the apprehension, prosecution, defense, sentencing, incarceration, and supervision of those suspected of or charged with criminal offenses. Source: The American Heritage Dictionary, accessed: 7/10/10, http://www.answers.com/topic/criminal-justice
Definition: It is a term used for the series of steps involved in proving any criminal activity like gathering evidences, arresting the accused, conducting trials, making defense, pronouncing judgement after the crime is proved, carrying out punishment. Source: Legal Explanations, accessed: 7/10/10, http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/criminal-justice.htm Discussion: The punishments doled out for illegal drug abuse are different for each governing entity. Therefore, for the affirmative to be able to specify reasons why illegal drugs should not be evaluated as a criminal justice issue on the whole they will have to prove reasons why certain penal codes are too strict and how certain criminalization policies may worsen the problem. On the other hand, the negative can argue that the resolution calls for the generalized wholesale rejection of all laws in the criminal justice system as a way to treat illegal drug abuse, and that not all instances of this are good. 1. C. TOPIC STRATEGIES AFFIRMATIVE ADDICTION IS INVOLUNTARY More often than not, abuse of illegal drugs is an involuntary reaction to the drugs. Even though most addicts do not wish to be under the control of substance, there is an intense bodily and psychological desire to use it anyways. Failure to do so results in withdrawal symptoms, many of which can make the person physically ill. For those that willingly took drugs and became addicted, even though they have initial blame, the addiction that follows is not something that is easily helped. One can't choose to simply get rid of this part of themselves. Addiction is considered a disease, and therefore should be a health issue. Also, people should not be punished for having abused illegal drugs, just for illegal actions surrounding it. Another issue is that some people were introduced to drugs against their own will and compulsively use them at very little fault of their own. In this category are people forced to take them, such as infants, rape victims, and ever people with prescription medications. Treating the issue of drug abuse as an issue of public health is a more subjective system that takes these people into account rather than that of its more objective counterpart of criminal justice. FEDERALISM Marijuana provides the case study for discrepancies between state and federal law in the United States. Whereas many states are starting to treat marijuana as a prescription medication, there are still raids on the companies by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Federalism is a driving force that keeps the powerful from becoming too powerful and prevents abuses of power. Federalism also allows for specific states to be able to be reflexive in their own laws which best suit the situation under their particular jurisdiction. NEGATIVE THE ABUSE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS AS BOTH PUBLIC HEALTH AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE While the affirmative is locked into defending that public health is a good way to treat illegal drug abuse, and that criminal justice is not, the exact inverse is not necessarily true for the negative. In this sense, the traditional burdens of the affirmative and negative may be reversed. Where the negative may usually have to prove itself exclusive with the affirmative, it is placed into a situation where it may find itself wanting to incorporate the entirety of the affirmative's case. All that has to be done to accomplish this is to prove that illegal drug abuse is not solely a public health issue. Criminal justice and public health often overlap. If this is the case, the negative must provide a disadvantage to solely treating illegal drugs as a public health issue. The possibilities for this disadvantage are endless. An example, however, are that the affirmative ignores an entire group of people who exhibit abusive drug behavior, such as the majority of the imprisoned community. However, also given the resolution, the negative does not have to defend either public health or criminal justice as an option. BIOPOWER Biopower is the concern for life addressed by politics. In this particular case, it deals with the quality of life in a few different ways. First is the stigmatization of illegal drug abuse. The illegal drug abuser is often stigmatized in this process. They are seen as a cancer to society that needs to be cut out, for the good of the public health. Next is how benign it
appears to have a benevolent reason to either punish or extend the hand of health to the illegal drug abuser. It appears to be for the good of the individual in the context of the general population, for their health, for harm reduction, while simultaneously stigmatizing that portion of the population.
The National Alliance of Advocates for Buprenorphine Treatment, A History of Opiate opoid Laws in the United States, 4/20/2010, accessed: 7/10/10, http://www.naabt.org/laws.cfm Here the National Alliance of Advocates for Buprenorphine Treatment put together a comprehensive history of laws within the United States. opiate
Lawrence Schrad, Mark, Department of Political Science at Villanova University, Constitutional Blemishes: American Alcohol Prohibition and Repeal as Policy Punctuation, Policy Studies Journal, 35.3, 2007. In this essay, Lawrence Schrad attempts to fill in the gaps of what he believes were the causes of the enactment and repeal of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. Spillane, Joseph is Associate Professor of History at the University of Floriday, Did Drug Prohibition Work?: Reflections on the End of the First Cocaine Experience in the United States, 1910-45, Journal of Drug Issues, 28.2, 1998. This essay tracks use patterns of cocaine in the United States, mainly in the first half of the twentieth century in to predict when the next fall in the pattern will happen. order
NPR, Timeline: America's War on Drugs, April 2, 2007, accessed: 7/10/10, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php storyId=9252490 NPR provides a comprehensive timeline with analysis pulled from their Frontline series on the War on Drugs in America. Miranda, Joseph is former instructor at the U.S. Army JFK Special Warfare Center and editor of Strategy and Tactics magazine, War or Pseudo-War? Social Justice, 25.2, 1998. Miranda attempts to demonstrate reasons why the War on Drugs is and isn't working. While providing real-world examples based in projections made and empirical failures surrounding those projections, Miranda also provides the constructs surrounding the war that allow its continued existence.
Sussman, Steve is a drug-abuse researcher and professor at USC, Stacy , Alan W. is Professor and Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs at Claremont University, Dent, Clyde W. is Senior Research Scientist at the Oregon Public Health Division, Simon, Thomas R. is with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Johnson, C. Anderson is Professor and Dean of the School of Community and Global Health at Claremont University, Marijuana Use: Current Issues and New Research Directions, Journal of Drug Issues, 26.4, 1996. This article explores the history of marijuana in the United States and gives very detailed explanations of the properties of the substance. It aims to find a new way to research the effects, beneficial or not, and apply that to the way that marijuana is treated in the United States. O'Keefe, Karen is Director of State Policies for Marijuana Policy Project, 14 Legal Medical Marijuana States, ProCon, 6/24/2010, accessed: 7/10/10, http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881 This is a frequently updated list of states that allow medicinal use of marijuana that includes summaries of the provisions in the laws allowing them as well as the laws themselves. Morse, Stephen J. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Addiction, Genetics and Criminal Responsibility, Law and Contemporary Problems, 69.1-2, 2006. In this article Morse explores accounts of criminal responsibility in order to understand other variables that come play with it, such as drug addiction. 2. B. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Schrag, Peter is a retired editorial page editor and columnist for the Sacramento Bee and has been writing for The Nation for nearly a half-century , A Quagmire for Our Time: the War on Drugs, Journal of Public Health Policy, 23.3, 2002. In this article, Schrag explores the reasons why the War on Drugs is failing, and why the general public and many states are rebelling against the federal government on the issue of drugs. Misner, Robert L. is a professor of law, director of the Center for Religion, Law and Democracy at Willamette University,, A Strategy for Mercy, William and Mary Law Review, 41.4, 2000. This essay investigates and tracks the value shifts in the American public as well as the criminal justice system, and the effects this has on the country as a whole, including the abuse of illegal drugs. Campbell, Nancy D. is a professor of science and technology studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, The Construction of Pregnant Drug-Using Women as Criminal Perpetrators, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 33.2, 2006. This article takes a specific sect of the illegal drug-abusing community, pregnant women, and explores whether or not this group of people should be treated criminally or through public health initiatives. Kay, Amanda, The Agony of Ecstasy: Reconsidering the Punitive Approach to United States Drug Policy, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29.5, 2002. Kay tries to make sense of the current cost-benefit analysis that current drug policy employs by examining the effects that this system has had on the United states and explores the merits behind prohibition and harm reduction. She places this in the context of what it means for punitive actions taken against drug users. into
OHear, Michael M. is Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Law at Marquette University, Federalism and Drug Control, Vanderbilt Law Review, 57.3, 2004. This article explores the questions of: which level of government-federal, state, or local-ought to have primacy in making and enforcing drug control policy? Which should have the authority to choose whether punishment or treatment of drug users will be emphasized in a particular locale? And what role should the other levels of government play in implementing such a choice? Bullington, Bruce is Associate Professor of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, Drug Policy Reform and Its Detractors: the United States as the Elephant in the Closet, Journal of Drug Issues, 34.3, 2004. This article concerns the United States' role in international drug policy making, past and present. In doing so, it investigates the models of prohibition versus the models of harm reduction. Armstrong, Andrew, Drug Courts and the De Facto Legalization of Drug Use for Participants in Residential Treatment Facilities, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94.1, 2004. Armstrong explores the ways in which illegal drugs become legal under certain circumstances, citing specifically residential treatment facilities as a case study. Pollack, Harold is the Helen Ross Professor at the School of Social Service Administration and faculty chair of the Center for Health Administration Studies at the University of Chicago, The Moral, Prudential and Political Arguments about Harm Reduction, Contemporary Drug Problems, 35.2-3, 2008. This article attempts to answer the questions: Why is the United States so resistant to public health strategies that find wide acceptance in many other wealthy democracies? This old question remains pressing. More important, given our history of missed opportunities to reduce the harms connected with HIV/ AIDS, can we do better? Gottschalk, Marie is a professor of political science at Yale University, Dismantling the Carceral State: the Future of Penal Policy Reform, Texas Law Review, 84.7, 2006. This article explores what Gottschalk believes are the proper ways to handle drug abuse within the criminal justice system.
10
11
B THOSE STRUGGLING MAINTAIN UNSAFE HABITS, PUTTING THEM AND OTHERS AT RISK FOR DISEASES SUCH AS HIV/AIDS BBC News, Dirty Needles Blamed for HIV, May 6, 2003, accessed: 7/13/10, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2995779.stm Children in South Africa are being infected with HIV through dirty needles, experts have claimed. Researchers have suggested hundreds of thousands of children may have contracted the virus in this way. The study is the latest to point to contaminated needles as a major cause of HIV in Africa. Some researchers believe as many as 40% of HIV infections in African adults are linked to injections. CONTENTION TWO: HARM REDUCTION SOLVES A - HARM REDUCTION USES A REALISTIC APPROACH TO THE NATURE OF DRUG ABUSE Macmaster, Samuel A. is Associate Professor of College of Social Work at University of Tennessee Knoxville, Harm Reduction: A New Perspective on Substance Abuse Services, Social Work, 49.3, 2004. Harm reduction is a conceptual framework that provides for individuals willing to be engaged in services, but not immediately seeking abstinence. Based on a public health model of social problems, harm reduction seeks to eliminate the negative consequences of phenomena for the members of a society without necessarily eliminating the phenomena (Des Jarlais, 1995). Primarily viewed as a policy framework, it is not synonymous with legalization, although the two are often confused (United Nations International Drug Control Programme [UNIDCP], 1997). Practitioners using this perspective develop interventions that reduce drug-related harm without necessarily promoting abstinence as the only solution. Common to discussions of harm reduction (Des Jarlais; Drucker, 1995; Harm Reduction Coalition, 1996; Scavuzzo, 1996; Springer, 1991, 1996; van Laar, de Zwart, & Mensink, 1996) are five assumptions: 1. Substance use has and will be part of our world; accepting this reality leads to a focus on reducing drug-related harm rather than reducing drug use. 2. Abstinence from substances is clearly effective at reducing substance-related harm, but it is only one of many possible objectives of services to substance users. 3. Substance use inherently causes harm; however, many of the most harmful consequences of substance use (HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, overdoses, automobile accidents, and so forth) can be eliminated without complete abstinence. 4. Services to substance users must be relevant and user friendly if they are to be effective in helping people minimize their substance-related harm. 5. Substance use must be understood from a broad perspective and not solely as an individual act; accepting this idea moves interventions from coercion and criminal justice solutions to a public health or social work perspective. B - HARM REDUCTION RECOGNIZES THAT THE RISK OF DISEASE OUTWEIGHS THE RISK OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND IS THE ONLY PROGRAM THAT ADDRESSES THAT Macmaster, Samuel A. is Associate Professor of College of Social Work at University of Tennessee Knoxville, Harm Reduction: A New Perspective on Substance Abuse Services, Social Work, 49.3, 2004. A recent development is the rapid adoption of harm reduction among HIV/AIDS services providers in the United States in response to the association between HW/AIDS risk and injection drug use (Clapp & Burke, 1999). In this context, HIV/ AIDS prevention took priority over preventing substance use. The preventable harm caused by HIV/AIDS clearly outweighs the need to adhere to the abstinence-based perspective. Quite simply, "dead addicts don't recover" (Vail & Stokes, 1999).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
NEGATIVE CASE
I negate the resolution Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. VALUE: JUSTICE Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2006, Merriam-Webster, Inc., http://www.m-w.com The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. CRITERION: UPHOLDING THE LAW Upholding laws set in place is the only way to achieve the value of justice, since justice is delegated based on existing laws. This is the most objective standard by which to evaluate this debate because it is easy to tell if decidedly illegal drug abuse falls outside and is contrary to current laws. This provides a clear outline based on the text of the law and whether or not that action upholds the law or does not. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS ILLEGAL DRUGS, FROM BUSINESS DICTIONARY. Habit forming stimulant or narcotic substance (such as alcohol, cannabis, nicotine, or a derivative of cocoa or poppy) which produces a state of arousal, contentment, or euphoria. Continued or excessive use (called drug abuse or substance abuse) of such substances causes addiction or dependence. Thereafter any attempt to discontinue their use results in specific reactions (called withdrawal symptoms) such as sweating, vomiting, and tremors which cease when the use is resumed. Also called illegal drug where its production and/or use is prohibited. Whether a substance is legal or illegal, however, may have nothing to do with its potential for addiction or harm: alcohol and nicotine, both addictive and harmful, are legal in most countries because they generate substantial employment or government revenue through taxes. The above definition indicates which drugs are outlawed, and overarching reasons why this is so. This indicates that there are specific drugs being spoken about in a legal or illegal context, and should be considered when evaluating todays debate. CONTENTION ONE: ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE IS A CRIMINAL ISSUE REGARDLESS OF CAUSE OR RESULT OF ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE, THERE IS STILL AN OBLIGATION TO THE LAW Morse, Stephen J. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Addiction, Genetics and Criminal Responsibility, Law and Contemporary Problems, 69.1-2, 2006. Criminal law's concept of the person, including the addict, is the antithesis of the medical model's mechanistic concept. Although all honest people will admit that biological and environmental variables beyond the person's rational control can cause an agent to be the type of person who is predisposed to commit crimes or can put the agent in the kind of environment that predisposes people to criminal activity, the law ultimately views the criminal wrongdoer as an agent and not simply as a passive victim who manifests pathological mechanisms. (15) Unless either the person does not act or an excusing condition is present, agency entails moral and legal responsibility that warrants blame and punishment. Suffering from a disease simpliciter, such as schizophrenia, does not itself mean that the defendant did not act or that an excusing condition obtained, although diseases and other causes may negate action or produce an excusing condition, such as gross irrationality. Most mental and physical diseases--even severe disorders--suffered by people who violate the criminal law do not have these exculpating effects because they do not sufficiently affect rational agency concerning criminal activity. (16) Even if addiction is properly characterized as an illness, most addicts are nonetheless capable of being guided by good reasons, including the incentives law can provide. (17) Sick people who behave immorally or who violate the criminal law are almost always responsible agents.
24
CONTENTION TWO: TREATING ILLEGAL DRUG ABUSE AS A CRIMINAL ISSUE SOLVES HEALTH CONCERNS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ALLOWS DRUG ABUSERS TO GET THE HELP AND TREATMENT THEY NEED National Institute of Drug Abuse, Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety, National Institutes of Health, March 2009, accessed 7/10/10 http://www.nida.nih.gov/tib/drugs_crime.html Substance abusing individuals in the criminal justice system have a host of complicated health problems. Involvement in the criminal justice system provides an opportunity to diagnose and treat these health problems, which include infectious diseases. The prevalence of AIDS is estimated to be approximately five times higher among incarcerated individuals than in the general population. In addition, individuals in the criminal justice system represent a significant proportion of all cases of hepatitis B and C infection and tuberculosis in the United States. Increasing participation in drug abuse treatment can decrease the spread of these diseases by reducing risky behaviors, such as sharing injection equipment and having unprotected sex. It is a public health and safety issue that cannot go unheeded.
25
26
27
28
29
30
ADDICTION IS NO EXCUSE
1. DRUG ADDICTION IS A LEARNED BEHAVIOR AND SHOULD BE REINFORCED PUNITIVELY Morse, Stephen J. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Addiction, Genetics and Criminal Responsibility, Law and Contemporary Problems, 69.1-2, 2006. It can be inferred from the addict's report about his or her own thoughts and feelings and from the negative consequences of addiction-related actions that the addict is driven by an overwhelming or overpowering desire termed "craving" and that drug seeking and using are "compulsive." But the environment and expectations play a weighty role in the addict's experience of craving and use. Addiction is a condition that is eliminated by large numbers of craving sufferers simply by intentionally ceasing to seek and use, and many cease craving after they quit. In many cases, the addict is able to quit because she finally has sufficient reason to do so, and many addicts "age out" of addiction. Even if addiction is properly and most usefully characterized as a disease, at the extreme its necessary behavioral signs are virtually all reward-sensitive or reason-responsive. An addict threatened with instant death for seeking and using will not seek and use unless she already wishes to die at that moment or does not care if she does. (9) 2. RESPONSIBILITY IS ZERO SUM Morse, Stephen J. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Addiction, Genetics and Criminal Responsibility, Law and Contemporary Problems, 69.1-2, 2006. The alleged incompatibility of determinism and responsibility is foundational. Determinism is not a continuum concept that applies to various individuals in various degrees. There is no partial or selective determinism. Responsibility is possible or it is not, tout court, if the universe is deterministic. If human beings are fully subject to the causal laws of the universe, as a thoroughly physicalist, naturalist worldview holds, then many philosophers claim that "ultimate" responsibility is impossible from the start. (23) On the other hand, plausible "compatibilist" theories suggest that responsibility is possible in a deterministic universe. (24) There seems no resolution to this debate in sight, but our moral and legal practices do not treat everyone or no one as responsible. Determinism cannot be guiding our practices. If one wants to excuse addicts because they are genetically determined or determined for any other reason to be addicts, one is committed to negating the possibility of responsibility for anything. 3. ADDICTION ITSELF SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME, CRIMES ASSOCIATED WITH IT SHOULD BE Morse, Stephen J. is Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Addiction, Genetics and Criminal Responsibility, Law and Contemporary Problems, 69.1-2, 2006. An agent will not be held responsible for anatomical, physiological, or psychological states associated with addiction, but the addict potentially may be held responsible for addiction-associated actions such as possession, use, or other crimes motivated by the desire to obtain and use drugs. Thus, the addict must be evaluated as an acting agent, a person who acts for reasons, and not simply as a biophysical mechanism. This would be true even if craving and compulsive seeking and using drugs were the inevitable, mechanistic outcome of a single-gene defect. The question, then, is how to assess the responsibility of an agent acting intentionally and unlawfully, but apparently compulsively in response to cravings. The criminal actions of addicts are in fact actions, not mechanisms, even if they may also be properly characterized as signs of disease or brain pathology, and discovery of biological or psychosocial causes does not per se negate agency and create an excusing condition. All actions have biological and nonbiological causes. The agent is not an addict unless the person seeks and uses the drug. And when she seeks and uses, she acts. She is not legally unconscious, even according to the most extravagantly narrow definition of action, and she surely acts intentionally. Genetically induced pathology may be a prime source of a craving, and compulsive action to satisfy the craving may produce harmful consequences, but activity to satisfy the craving for drugs is nonetheless action. The core definition of addiction entails this. The question, therefore, is whether addicts should be excused for their addiction-related actions. This part begins an answer with consideration of those features of addiction-related behavior--craving and compulsion--that are most relevant to an assessment of the criminal law's excusing conditions of lack of rationality and legal compulsion. It continues by addressing the two primary theoretical candidates for why actions motivated by cravings and compulsions might be excused--the internal compulsion and irrationality theories. Finally, it turns to society's responsibility for addiction-related behaviors and whether such responsibility negates or lessens individual responsibility.
31
32
33
We are also interested in the subject of crime seriousness because criminal justice policy, or more specifically the punishment response focuses on street crimes of violence. The reason for this is that public fear street crimes such as robbery and homicide more than other forms of criminality such as white collar crimes. In this respect, public reaction does not necessarily reflect an objective assessment of the harm to society. Estimates of the magnitude of the problem vary but statistics show that annually approximately 100,000 workers die from accidents and diseases contracted as a result of violations of health and safety codes. The perception that white collar crimes are relatively benign is part of the mythology of crime and criminal justice. It is important, then, to understand public perceptions of the relative harm associated with different forms of criminality.
34