Corinna Murphy

October 23, 2017

Period 6

Annotated Source List

Adler, Johnathan H. "Symposium Marijuana, Federal Power, and the States: Introduction." Case
Western Reserve Law Review, vol. 65, no. 3, 2015, pp.505-12.

The use, cultivation of, and sale of marijuana is federally illegal, listed in Schedule I of
the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The federal government has not sought to prioritize action
against marijuana in states where it has been decriminalized or legalized, but it also has not
encouraged increased creation of such policies either. The legality of state reform is unclear; the
Supreme Court affirmed the federal government’s ability to prohibit possession and distribution
of marijuana, but federal enforcement relies on state cooperation. Congress and the executive
branch also can’t force state compliance since they lack the DEA manpower. In 2009, the justice
department focused its efforts on reducing production and distribution to stop trafficking but not
on possession. However, in 2013, the justice department stated it would make no effort to block
Washington’s and Colorado’s legalization initiatives, since it was unlikely to threaten federal
priorities such as interstate trafficking. Since 2013, the state and local enforcement agencies have
focused on enforcing state law. States may expressly counteract the felony due to their desire to
tax marijuana. Between all these conflicting interests and messages, it is difficult to know which
policy to abide by and which policy to enforce. Marijuana is the latest battleground for the age-
old state power versus federal power dispute. Curiously, Democrats (who often address drug
policy) are hesitant to allow marijuana law reform while Conservatives (who are seen as tough
on crime) are more lenient and see states as experiments for democracy. Though most support
for marijuana legalization comes from the Democratic side, Republican support for the issue is
growing as it develops into terms of states’ rights. In 2016, several Republican candidates voiced
support for states to choose their own marijuana laws. However, the Romney campaign was very
hostile to marijuana legalization due to Republican history of resistance against reform in favor
of drug legalization. States traditionally in favor of states’ rights have also resisted Colorado's
experimentation with marijuana reform for fear that this may influence jurisdiction within their
states. One possible solution is for the federal government to treat marijuana like alcohol, and
maintain federally controlled interstate trafficking but allowing states to set more specific rules.
There is no evidence to suggest that a repeal to marijuana prohibition would not be as effective at
resolving federal-state conflict as the repeal of alcohol prohibition.
This article was very useful because it spoke about the current legislative issues on a
federal level with the legalization of illegal substances, namely marijuana. Based on this article, I
have drawn the conclusion that while there are arguments for both sides of the argument for or
against legalization of marijuana, from a legal standpoint it is difficult to address the
discrepancies between the state and federal laws. It also indicates the multifaceted, conflicted
support for legalization laws due to the involvement with states rights. This information is truly a
different way to consider the issue of legalization, since I hadn’t considered allowing federalism
to have more control over drug policy before. The benefits are it would allow specific
environments to treat their issues most effectively. This point of view gains support from
Glasscock’s testimony on the hearing for the decriminalization of illegal drugs. Since he was
able to treat the heroin addiction issue in his city with specific steps and parameters, perhaps
federalistic approach to illegal drug policy is the best manner in which to address legalization. I
would like to conduct further research on the specific implications of Colorado’s and
Washington’s legalization, and I think this information could be very revealing in terms of crime
rates. However, this information will be most helpful for marijuana because heroin and other
illicit drugs incite more violent crimes.

Bammer, Gabriele, et al. "The Heroin Prescribing Debate: Integrating Science and Politics."
Science, vol. 284, 24 May 1999, pp. 1277-78.

Heroin is the drug associated with the highest mortality rates. The goal of heroin
treatment is to decrease dependence on the drug so the individual can be fully reestablished into
society. For most, methadone replaces heroin dependency by bonding to the drug receptors in the
brain. Heroin is also considered as a treatment option, with most data coming from the United
Kingdom and recent Swiss trials. Overprescription by a small number of Doctors in the Uk
caused a substantial black market trade. Since a study comparing methadone and heroin
prescription to addicts found that neither was conclusively more effective, practitioners shifted
away from heroin toward methadone. Only 300 individuals in the UK are prescribed heroin, and
that is only after a significant history of other methods failing. Only 50 practitioners in the Uk
actively use their licenses to prescribe heroin. In Switzerland, studies found that operating a
heroin injection supervision clinic during limited hours was legal, feasible, and socially
acceptable. Random studies showed injectable heroin was superior to injectable morphine and
methadone at attracting the target audience, preventing premature dropout, and reducing illegal
drug use. These studies also indicated that fears of doses growing uncontrollably were
unfounded.
This article was helpful because it allowed me to see the potential help that legalized
heroin can provide to addict users. However, the results within the two main study groups, the
UK and Switzerland, disputed the superiority of heroin over methadone injections. Additionally,
the social ramifications of such actions are disputable, with the UK practitioners providing
material for a heroin black market and increased addiction rate within the country and Swiss
scientists determining heroin was more effective at reducing illegal drug use. Since the results of
these numerous studies are disputable, I think this article offers little conclusive evidence about
the long term ramifications of heroin use. The question of population size on efficacy of heroin
prescription use is also not known as both of these countries are relatively small when compared
with the United States. I will use this article because it offers two different opinions from two
different studies, and the counterclaim in one study is addressed by the claim in the other.

Barnett, Randy E. "The Harmful Side Effects of Drug Prohibition." Georgetown University Law
Center, 2009.

This article proposes that just as people can become addicted to drugs, others can become
addicted to drug laws. They support drug laws because it makes them feel like they are taking
action against a societal wrong, and they are economically dependent on the money that
prosecuting, defending, or researching addicts brings them. They also assert, usually
untruthfully, that they would be willing to stop their support at any time, given they are shown
enough evidence that prosecuting addicts is harmful to society. Enforcement of drug laws and
denying legalization of illicit substances is harmful to the addicts, police enforcement, and the
public; the drug-law addicts are using the law to accomplish a social agenda rather than
promoting the common good, as they would like to believe. Illegalization promoters are limiting
a voluntary consumptive activity through force. The content which is being consumed is not
inherently bad for the consumers anymore than regulated substances such as tobacco or aspirin.
However, the force used to control this behavior is inherently damaging to the users and society.
For example, imprisoning such individuals often makes matters worse. Additionally, the laws are
meant to protect the people, the same people who are punished for using the drug. Since the
illegality of the drug raises the price due to a risk premium, those who use the drug, and
generally have shown a willingness to break the law, are likely to turn to theft, robbery, burglary
in which they would otherwise not engage. The high price also encourages users to choose
dangerous, efficient ingesting options.
This article shows strong bias towards legalization of drugs. However, it did add new
perspective for me regarding the cause and effect relationship one sees in other sources.
Generally, one considers the drugs to be causing the illegal activity. This suggests, that the sole
reason for participating in illegal activity is because it allows individuals to participate in drug
activity, and that had the drugs been legal, they would not have participated to that effect. This
causes the further question of if individuals are biologically more likely to commit crime based
on drug use, or if it is a social factor that they would not otherwise need to do so.This article has
several logical fallacies, though it in and of itself offers many thought provoking ideas. By
partaking of illegal drugs, the individuals who then commit robberies for the money to do so had
already shown a predisposition to ignore the law. And even if drugs were legalized, there would
still be robberies in order to obtain them, though this may occur in a related dispensary not a
different source. In any case, the article does admit that there is a correlation and even causation
between drug use and illegal behavior, despite the fault perhaps lying with the laws themselves. I
believe I wish to use this article in my paper, even if only to deny its counterargument.

Bennett, Trevor. "The British Experience with Heroin Regulation." Law and
 Contemporary Problems, vol. 51, no. 1.

In 19th century Britain, substance regulation encompassed only some drugs to needing a
doctor’s prescription. From 1926-1966, there was relative stability in Britain's controlled
substances. A small increase in the number of drug users in 1950 caused a surge in policy
changes that continues today. The British System is a term used to indicate the period of
tranquility following the passage of Rolleston Committee Report in 1926, but system implies
organization not the reality of loose guidelines. It is unique in that doctor’s classify addiction as
an illness and prescribe opiates to addicts. The Rolleston phase formed the basis for British drug
policy for decades. It allowed doctors to prescribe dangerous substances to addicts if they were
using the gradual reduction method or were suitable for indefinite drug administration; they
needed only a small amount to function normally, and their withdrawal symptoms were too
severe to be treated without the drug. This method, which lacked control from the government or
from doctors, did not increase the number of heroin addicts, though morphine addicts remained
in high numbers (usually stemming from medical treatment).
This article offers empirical information regarding the progression and success of drug
policies in Britain. While there are differences between Britain and the United States, namely in
population size and number of large cities, the information provided by British experience would
be invaluable to consider when trying to write new American legal policy. Additionally, this
article addresses some historical information regarding drug use. From this article, I concluded
that just as medical-painkillers frequently spawn opiate addiction in long-term patients,
morphine, which was used for medical purposes to manage pain, was the most prevalent addicted
drug, as prescription drugs are in the United States today. This indicates the importance of
considering how to address medical painkillers in policy as well. I will use this article because it
offers a case study of multiple different policy approaches and their effect on the world. With a
concrete example of successful and unsuccessful policy, I will be more capable to create my
own.

Bose, Jonaki, et al. "Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States:
Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health." SAMHSA, vol. 16, no.
4984, Sept. 2016.

This source is a national study that reports the indicators of substance abuse and mental
health in Americans older than 12. Trends are presented when estimates appear comparable in
previous years. In 2015, 10% of people used an illegal substance in the past 30 days. This is
caused mainly by marijuana use and misuse of prescription pain relievers. Marijuana use
remained the same as in 2014. The estimates for heroin use was lower than in 2004 and 2009, but
comparable to 2010. Cocaine use was higher than in 2014 but similar to 2013, and crack use was
similar to 2014 estimates. 13.5% of people aged 12-20 binge drank or used alcohol heavily
within the last month. 20.8 million people had substance abuse issues in 2015. 21.7 million
people needed substance abuse treatment, it they had a substance abuse disorder (sud) or
received treatment at a specialized facility.
This source demonstrates the trends in drug use, illicit or otherwise. It reinforces the need
for policy change, either to provide greater means of help or to reduce the amount of drugs
available through strict enforcement. The large number of Americans who used illegal drugs is
surprising, which means some drug policies are not currently being adequately enforced. If this
were the case, fewer people would be able to use illegal drugs. It is also astonishing that such
large numbers of people had a substance abuse disorder and even more people sought treatment
for such a disorder. This point is reconciled by the fact that ongoing treatment is being counted
as treatment rather than as an abuse disorder. Since the number of people with a SUD is much
larger than the people using illegal drugs, much of the issue must stem from dependence on legal
drugs and misuse of controlled drugs. This indicates policy must change predominantly in these
areas to affect the largest number of people. I will use the article to provide empirical data to
support the need for policy change.

"Circuit Court Division." Howard County, Maryland, 2017. Accessed 30 Sept. 2017.

This website stated the role of the Circuit Court in Howard County. The legislators are
expected to take a variety of case types in order to be able to address a broad range of subject
issues. Additionally, the types of cases they see are generally more severe and include arson,
murder, sex offenses, child abuse, cyber offenses, white collar crimes, and drug felonies. They
have an arson unit, burglary unit, drug unit, economic crimes unit, and motor vehicular
manslaughter unit. Each unit works with lead investigators in the respective field in order to
prosecute these crimes.
This webpage helped me fully understand where I am interning and the opportunities
they have in terms of types of cases they see, including murder, arson, white collar crimes, and
narcotics. I am currently considering researching further into contraband including drug felonies
and narcotics.

Osborne, Samuel. "British Medical Journal calls for legalisation of drugs." Independent, 14 Nov.
2016.

The British Medical Journal called for the legalization of illegal drugs, saying that the
prohibition laws failed to decreased addiction, stop violence, or cut profits for organized crime. It
also pointed to the fact that over a quarter of a billion of adults worldwide have used illegal drugs
including cannabis, heroin, and cocaine. Some countries, including Portugal and the UK, have
taken steps toward legalization by imposing civil not criminal penalties and criminalizing the
source not use of illicit drugs. The journal calls for rescheduling of marijuana use and review of
heroin treatments, which showed positive results when tested in Switzerland. It also recommends
relocating assets from prosecuting and enforcing prohibition laws and focusing instead on
treatment. Dreifuss, President of Switzerland, argues against an idealized drug free nation to
focus on public health, social integrity, and human rights.
 This newspaper article was very helpful to me because I was unable to gain access to the
complete article through other means. However, this review of the British Medical Journal
Report should be corroborated with other sources, as it is a review, not an authentic and unbiased
copy of the original text. The ideas proposed in this article are similar to what arguments in the
United States for drug legalization seem like. However, they do not argue for needle exchange
programs, which may protect the public health, and instead, the story concentrates on the
benefits to society of such policy. This new policy would seem reminiscent of the effective
Rolleston Era British Policy that allowed doctors to prescribe dangerous drugs under certain
conditions. This policy was highly effective, though it operated under different conditions, with
under 300 drug addicts in the country. This article was helpful in allowing me to view
legalization arguments from different sources and offering me new directions to explore in terms
of legalization policy. However, I do not believe I will use this source in my paper because it did
not offer enough of a comprehensive, detailed look that would have been supported by empirical
data.

Controlled Substances Act. United States Code, vol. II, 1970.

The CSA (Controlled Substances Act) places all regulated substances into five schedules.
The schedule depends on the substance’s potential to be used for medical purposes, abused, and
to be a safety liability. It also allows methods of transferring between schedules. DEA, HHS, or
any interested individual may petition to change the schedule of one of the controlled substances,
and after the DEA receives a petition, it begins a thorough investigation of the substance. Once
the DEA completes its investigation, it asks the head of the HHS for a recommendation about the
status of the drug. The recommendation is binding in terms of the authority and legitimacy of the
medical and scientific reports, but the recommendation is only binding to the extent that is the
head of the HHS recommends that a drug should not be controlled, the DEA cannot control it.
The main issue for allowing a substance to be controlled is its potential for abuse, which is never
formally defined, but has through legislative precedent been evaluated by significant numbers
taking the drug to the extent that they harm their health or the health of the community, the drug
has been diverted from legitimate drug channels (prescription drug abuse), and people take the
drugs by their own authority and not as recommended by a medical professional.
This source is very helpful because it is the legislation that authorizes control of illegal
drugs, for making drugs illegal, and for changing that schedule. Additionally, it has created a
significant interest in the potential for a drug to be abuse. There is no specific legislative
statement dictating what abuse potential is, and I believe if that were to be more readily
qualified, the elasticity of the law would make it unadaptable. However, it demonstrates the
issues marijuana must pose for the DEA. Not only does the DEA not have the manpower to
enforce its rulings on the local and state level, as indicated by Adler, but it also must respond to
numerous petitions by any interested individual in the need for marijuana to be either
decriminalized or legalized. This makes me believe that the decisions coming from the federal
illegality of marijuana use must stem from places of legitimate research, since it’s standing must
be frequently evaluated. I would like to conduct further research on the nature of marijuana
reviews by the DEA. I would also like to view the Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of
federal power over controlling marijuana.

"Controlled Substances Act." U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA, 3 Aug. 2003,
www.fda.gov. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017.

This article released by the FDA offers a more comprehensive view into the Controlled
Substances Act. It dictates what considerations must be analyzed before placing a substances on
a regulation schedule: potential for abuse, scientific evidence of the pharmacological effects, the
current scientific knowledge about the substance, history of abuse, scope of abuse, public health
risk factor, psychic or psychological dependence liability, and if it is a direct precursor to another
controlled substance. Schedule 1 drugs have high abuse potential, no proof of medical
application, and no accepted safety procedures for use (LSD, marijuana). Schedule 2 has high
potential for abuse, accepted medical applications, severe physical dependence, and severe
psychological dependence (cocaine, morphine) Schedule 3 drugs have less potential for abuse,
accepted medical treatment, moderate physical dependency, and high psychological dependence
(anabolic steroids, codeine with aspirin). Schedule 3 drugs have less potential for abuse, accepted
medical use, Schedule 4 drugs have low potential for abuse, accepted medical treatment, and
limited physical or psychological dependence (Valium, Xanax). Schedule 5 drugs have low
potential for abuse, accepted medical treatment, and limited physical or psychological
dependence compared to Schedule 3 (codeine cough medicine).
This article will be used and cited to help verify my understanding and interpretation of
litigation, since the language is much harder to access in the actual act. I felt I needed this
verification, and I was able to gain more information regarding the Controlled Substances Act.
Interestingly, during my internship, I come most into contact with individuals interacting with
Schedule drugs such as cocaine when committing violent crimes. The individuals interacting
with marijuana were violent less frequently, even though it is a Schedule 1 drug. I will use this
source to question the priorities the US government places on some substances when compared
to others, as well as referring to the amount of control given to each schedule as a means of
reform.

Davis, Kevin C., et al. "Correlates of Marijuana Drugged Driving and Openness to Driving
While High: Evidence from Colorado and Washington." PLos ONE, vol.11, no. 1, 2016.

This source explores the relationship between marijuana drugged driving and two
potential precursors of marijuana DUI. This study explores data from Colorado and Washington
where marijuana has been recently legalized. 43% of respondents admitted to driving under the
influence of marijuana in the past year. 24% of respondents drove at least 5 times in the past
month within one hour of smoking marijuana. Perception that driving under the influence of
marijuana is unsafe was associated with higher probability of marijuana DUI in the past month
and lower frequency of driving five times within one hour of smoking in the past month. People
were more likely to associate marijuana DUI with being unsafe than with being familiar with
marijuana DUI laws. People are more likely to drive while high if they think it is illegal than if
they think it is unsafe. It would be more effective to campaign for the dangerous nature of
driving while high than campaign for the policy.
This source that suggests even if illegal drug laws remain illegal, or perhaps even become
more restrictive, people will still participate in that action more frequently if they think it is
illegal than if they think it is unsafe. This indicates that to effectively reduce the number of
people using illegal drug improperly, one must convince the users that the act is unsafe rather
than illegal. This source returns to a topic raised by Glasscock in the House Hearing on the
Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs in which he stated that only through effective campaigning
about the dangers of using heroin and other illegal drugs was he able to reduce the number of
users in his community. This reminds me of cigarette government-mandated PSAs in which it is
widely disseminated that cigarettes are bad for health, and the demand for cigarettes similarly
plummeted. By implementing policy that forces regular PSAs to run on the dangers of illegal
drugs, it is possible that the number of users of illegal drugs would decrease.

Egli, Dominik. "The Swiss Heroin Policy." Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 1999, pp.
187-307.

This article examines the economic implications of the Swiss heroin policy, which is now
one of the most liberal in the world. This includes expansion of repression and abstinence
treatment programs, lowering of methadone program qualifications, and the institutionalization
of heroin as a legal therapeutic drug. However, despite these new adaptations, the Swiss heroin
policies are still too prohibitive. 50% of the funds relocated to this project are allocated to
repressive measures. Most addicts would prefer to be clean and regret becoming addicted, and
the cycle of heroin use, periods of high usage and periods of almost no usage, demonstrates this
desire. Most of the negative aspects associated with heroin including violence, crime and the
spread of AIDS are actually associated with repressive policy. The answer is controlled
legalization with taxation to control consumption with price. The number of heroin addicts
stopped increasing around 1990, when the Swiss programs still focused on repression and
prohibition. Now that some harm reduction and substance therapy have been implemented, the
rate of growth has stopped. This is because harm reduction programs are most voluntarily used.
State controlled supplies of heroin could also lead to the breakdown of the black market in some
places. So while the Swiss program needs help, it is definitely a step in the right direction.
This article fails to acknowledge other serious aspects of heroin addiction, namely
overdose and death. Additionally, if the government means to inflate the price of heroin at times,
there will not be anything to prevent the users to turning to criminal sources again. I also see
several logical fallacies, if government controlled supplies of heroin exist, they may drive the
price of heroin down, especially since there is less risk in transporting it now that the drug has
been legalized. If the government and the black market dealers become competitive, it could
actually drive the number of users up since the low price makes the substance available to more
people. I would like to use this source because it address the economic implications of a
legalization change, which I do not evaluate in any other articles. Additionally, I wish to use this
article as demonstrative of the perspective of the more extreme legalization movement.

Franklin, F. Abron, II, et al. "Alcohol Outlets and Violent Crime in Washington D.C." Western
Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 11, no. 3, 2010.

This document demonstrates a correlation between locations with high alcohol usage and
violent crime rates. The information was gathered from Washington D.C.’s census data of
alcohol consumption, crime rate, and population. The researchers developed an algorithm to
assess alcohol availability and violent crime rate while controlling other factors that impact
violent crime including weapons and illegal drugs. The results demonstrate that community
alcohol outlet density is strongly associated with assaultive violence.
The source relates to my internship in investigating both drug use and violent crime.
However, the emphasis at my internship is on violent crime relating to illicit drug use.
Additionally, this study may not be the most replicable because the study was based only on
census data and crime rate, not the number of repeat offenders, or severity of the crime. Because
the research is not as broad or applicable to locations outside of Washington D.C. Additionally,
no reason for this correlation was presented in the article, and the implications of the findings
were not well addressed.

Gupta, Ravi, et al. "The Rising Price of Naloxone-Risks to Efforts to Stem Overdose Death." The
New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 375, no. 23, 8 Dec. 2016.

Naloxone is an injection that reverses opioid injection and overdose. The FDA rapidly
approved both the single injection and nasal spray of this drug in order to decrease overdose
death rates. The 2016 Addiction and Recovery Act expands access to naloxone through user
training and prescription grants. Since it is illegal for physicians to prescribe this drug to third
parties (families and friends of users), 40 states have adopted legislation offering them immunity
from civil and criminal law suites for such prescriptions. 40 states have also authorized standing
prescriptions for naloxone for at risk patients. However, retail prescription numbers remain
unchanged, and EMS and clinics buy increasing amounts; this is perhaps being driven by
increasing cost due to few manufacturers. These rising prices reflect a trend in prescription drug
price inflation, which emerging legislation targets like California’s Fair Accountability and
Innovative Research Drug Pricing Act. Some ways to reduce the monopoly would be to buy
naloxone in bulk, to charter companies with the US government to produce cheaper options, and
allowing importation from foreign manufacturers with similar standards to the FDA.
This source is useful because it address not only how to reduce the number of heroin
addicts but also effective legislation that may be passed for treating existing ones. I will use this
source in my paper because it contains information I have not yet seen or heard of in my
investigation, and I believe it would contain an easy, logical link to other drug policy changes I
would propose. In general, this article fails to mention the repercussions of naloxone such as its
effects on the use of opioids and better methods for dispersion of naloxone to the public.

Hasin, Deborah, et al. "Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States between
2001-2002 and 2012-2013." JAMA Psychiatry, vol. 72, no. 12, 2015, pp. 1235-43.

Laws about marijuana are allowing more of the substance to be used, but there is little
research on the prevalence of cannabis use and disorders. This experiment was conducted using
face to face interviews with two groups nationally representative of American adults. There has
been a 5% increase in the percent of American adults who use marijuana between 2001-2002 and
2012-2013. This increase was mirrored in statistically significant manner across demographics
based on age, race, and gender. Marijuana use disorders had decreased since 2001-2002 by
approximately 5% of marijuana users. The prevalent increase in marijuana use disorders was
based on the increase on the number of American adults using marijuana, since the disorder
prevalence actually decreased proportional to the number of users. Policy makers should keep
the negative implications of marijuana use in mind while attitudes and laws about marijuana
change, but they should also consider a balanced view of proportionality of the issue.
This research demonstrates the increasing prevalence of marijuana use among
Americans. This source was filled with empirical data from a very large sample group, and the
results found were statistically significant. Since the proportion of marijuana use disorders is
decreasing, this may indicate the relaxing laws may have benefitted marijuana users. It could
also indicate people who are less likely to become addicted began to use it. Since general
permissiveness for marijuana usage is growing in the United States, it would be impractical,
unpopular, and impossible to try to reverse these laws, especially since this article has offered
little damage incurred by those with Marijuana Use Disorders. I will not use this article
extensively because I already have instances of similar information elsewhere with more
interpretation, but I will use it for the significant, empirical data it presents.

Jamil, Mariam, et al. "Stroke from Vasospasm due to Marijuana Use: Can Cannabis
Synergistically with Other Medications Trigger Cerebral Vasospasm?" Case Reports in
Neurological Medicine, vol. 2016, 2016.

Illegal drugs such as heroin, LSD, and cannabis have been linked to (and suspected
causative of) strokes. Marijuana is one of the most commonly used drugs in America, with its
audiences tending to be a slightly younger crowd. There have been multiple studies indicating a
causal link between cannabis and stroke. Buprenorphine is used in long term treatment of opioid
addiction. This source relates the first discovery of a stroke after a vasospasm in a cannabis user
who also took buprenorphine-naloxone. Since people taking buprenorphine do not experience the
same “high” as heroin, they also are prone to taking cannabis. This is the first link to suggest a
synergistic effect of the two drugs that lead to morbid stroke. It is important that healthcare
professionals become more aware of cannabis interactions, effects, and implications as
consumption is expected to increase rapidly in the next years.
This source does not address the issues of heroin dependence as fully as I wish, however
it does provide potential consequences of marijuana legalization including the unknown side
effects marijuana, recreational or otherwise, can have when combined with other drugs. This
indicates to me that further testing must be conducted into the effects of cannabis usage before
marijuana should be legalized throughout the country for medicinal purposes. Additionally, this
source indicates that alternatives to heroin legalization to those who are addicted, since the last
instance the [patient reported of having used heroin occurred three years ago. Additionally, it is
easier to control the addictive potential of substitutes when combining them with other drugs.
This weakens counter arguments to the continued restriction of heroin even for medical
purposes, as indicated in Constantine’s testimony when he recounts Nadelmann’s articles.

Lund, Ingunn, et al. "Overlap in attitudes to policy measures on alcohol, tobacco and illegal
drugs." International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 28, Feb. 2016, pp. 60-66.

This source investigates support in Norway for the restriction of access to legal drugs and
the methods of policy address of this issue. The study sampled 1803 individuals aged 16-64 over
a telephone survey. Favorability for increased governmental intervention and intrusiveness was
rated on a scale of one to five. Intrusiveness of an issue was categorized by the limitation of
personal freedom. Of the participants in the survey, 87% had consumed alcohol in the past
month, 25% smoked, and 5% had used illegal drugs. Overall, the less intrusive measures
including attitude campaigning, banning advertisements, and the allocation of resources to
advertise against illegal drugs were supported. However, intrusive measures such as the
restricted sale of alcohol and tobacco and increased tax against these substances, were not
favored by the respondents. In the study, there was a stronger correlation for similar measures
across different substances than intrasubstance measures. The demographic of the respondent,
marked by years of education and gender, played a weak to moderate correlative role. The study
suggests that people are more likely to have consistent opinions toward the type of policy
measure used to govern controlled substances than toward the type of substance in and of itself.
This source addresses possible reasons for the development of certain drug policies,
which would then later be addressed by courts of law when these policies are broken. In general,
policy is more likely to be created if it is not seen as an impediment to an individual’s personal
freedom. Interestingly, there was minimal significant correlation between respondents’ responses
concerning the type of restrictive policy supported, though, as some data suggests in other
articles, some demographics are more highly affected by drug charges than others. This may
indicate a sort of idealization of certain individuals to future behavior, or since the less restrictive
measures were found favorable, perhaps they wish to protect their ability to obtain controlled
substances including tobacco and alcohol, which was identified in “Alcohol Outlets and Violent
Crime in Washington D.C.” as strongly correlated to violent crime. This may indicate a general
inability to create policy that protects against drug-induced violent crime due to the point of view
of the people.

Macdonald, Aidan. "Insite or Outside the Law: Examining the place of safe injection sites within
the Canadian legal system." Onati Socio-Legal Series, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011.

In the 1980s, Europe adopted harm reduction strategies to curb the number of overdose
deaths and HIV/AIDS cases transmitted via intravenous injection with needle exchange
programs and safe injection spaces. To fail to fully legalize insite is to fail a set of fundamental
social values. Drug addiction should be treated as a health related rather than a criminal problem,
and empirical evidence in the form of interviews with users of Insite, employees, and addicts
show Insite’s community benefit. Harm-reduction is reducing the possible harms associated with
dangerous behaviors, and it notably does not require individuals to remove coping mechanisms
until new ones are ready for use. These sites offer monitoring while injecting to prevent
overdose, needle exchange programs, and counseling and health advising. The first injection
sites were presented by drug dealers who wanted to maximize profit, and there was no emphasis
on safety or eventual change in behavior. They contributed to the rising death rate because
overdosing individuals were ignored or thrown out in order to hide the location from the police.
The first injection site operated without legal approval, but law enforcement also did not oppose
the practice. Injection sites have grown to combat opioid induced deaths, street crime, and drug
related litter. These facilities are allowed to operate as scientific laboratories where
investigations into effective harm reduction strategies are being performed. The overall results
from these investigations were positive, with reductions in public nuisance, and public and client
health being the main conclusions, though not enough research has been done on the topic.
This source is valuable to me because it offers an opinion in favor of some form of
legalization of drugs, in this case for scientific purposes. The idea of safe injection sites seems
novel and positive in America, however there is not enough evidence to justify their spread into
the United States. For example, while the overall public health has seen improvement due to the
reduction of AIDS, the article fails to mention if the injection sites worked positively in reducing
the number of drug addicts. The results also did not mention in an empirical fashion if the sites
were effective in reducing street crime, or if the sites increased the amount of street crime.
Similarly, the study failed to acknowledge the possibility of more people turning to addictive
drugs without the threat of potential death and infection. I would like to conduct further research
on the possibility of safe injection sites, though I am currently dubious as to their overall benefit
in reducing the number of addicts, the influence of criminal gangs in supplying drugs, or in the
prevalence of street crime. Currently, I believe continuation of these programs should continue
for further research purposes, as the results are now rather unconvincing.

Murphy, Mary. Interview. 2017.

Ms. Murphy, my mentor, graduated from Georgetown University Law Center. She has
many accolades including her election as president of the Howard County Bar Association in
2012, after winning the Howard County Bar Association’s President’s Award twice. The Howard
County Chamber of Commerce named her Distinguished Prosecutor of the Year, and after 21
years working in the Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office, she attained the position of
Deputy State’s Attorney, the first woman to ever hold that office.

Oldham, Kim. Interview. 2017.

Oldham is a graduate of Virginia Tech and earned her Juris Doctor at the Catholic
University Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C. She was appointed Deputy State’s
Attorney in 2011 to oversee the District Court and Circuit Court Divisions for Howard County.
The Howard County Chamber of Commerce named Oldham Prosecutor of the Year in 2002 for
her outstanding to the community. She is also a member of the Howard County Police
Department's Body Camera Work Group Committee, of HC Drug Free, and of the Overdose
Fatality Review Team for Howard County.

Ochsenbein, Gabriele. "‘Without the heroin programme I’d probably be dead’." Swissinfo.ch, 27
Jan. 2014, Drug Treatment sec., www.swissinfo.ch. Accessed 25 Oct. 2017.

This news story focuses on the personal experiences of Evelyn, who uses the heroin
program in Switzerland. Evelynn started off using the drug as a means to rid herself of awkward
feelings in social interactions, and she used it to deal with her mother’s sudden death. She
receives half a gram of pure heroin a day, and she craves it all day. Evelynn believes she would
be dead without the heroin program. She claims that days of trying to rehabilitate addicts was
purposefully causing addicts to suffer for their addiction. She sold herself to pay for heroin, but
she asserts she never felt at home on the streets. When the first heroin program opened, she
joined, pulled herself together, got an apartment, and is now working a stable job in a restaurant.
Evelynn acknowledges the likelihood of eliminating heroin from her life is low, but she doesn’t
want her use to define her.
This article allowed me a better perspective of the average life of a heroin addict. I also
understand the importance of drug programs in the lives of addicts who depend on them.
However, I also learned that while the program allowed Evelynn to become more stable, she also
has no intention of ever coming off the substance and is happy to spend her life addicted to this
one drug. In my opinion, permitting this reliance on heroin based on the income of others
through taxes is not acceptable. A better alternative would be to allow addicts to use heroin and
gradually reduce their intake levels until they are able to function without it. I believe I will use
this source because of the powerful nature of a personal account of the effect of heroin programs.

Sevigny, Eric L., and Michaela Saisana. "Measuring Interstate Variations in the Consequences of
Illegal Drugs: A Composite Indicator Approach." Social Indicators Research, vol. 128,
no. 2, Sept. 2016, pp. 501-29.

This source measures and compares the consequences of illegal drugs in different states
and regions. It assigns the following illegal drugs, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and
marijuana, a DCI, Drug Consequences Indices by creating an Analytic Hierarchy Process based
on input from drug and addiction experts. These scores are on scales of 0-100, and the data was
gained from select drug data systems, including the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The DCI was established by
using 3 main domains, Health, Social and Economic, and Crime and Disorder, split into three
smaller subsets each. The researchers first consulted literature to create a taxonomy for each of
the domains’ effects and then consulted area experts to validify, alter, or provide commentary on
the completeness of the created taxonomy. In general, from 2000-2009, the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic states consistently scored highest on the heroin DCI, and the overall DCI increased
across the United States. The methamphetamine DCI depicted Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, and
Idaho as being the most significantly negatively impacted. However, many Northeastern and
Mid-Atlantic states, who had had issues with Heroin, scored the lowest DCI. Use of
methamphetamines spread East, and slightly declined in DCI severity by 2009. The cocaine DCI
was highest in Maryland, North Carolina, and Delaware, but significantly decreased across the
board in the middle of the decade. The cocaine DCI grew in severity along the southeastern
United States, but eventually began to recede by 2006. The marijuana DCI demonstrates a less
regionalized impact than the other illegal drugs. The trend also varied greatly between states,
with some seeing significant increase and others seeing a significant decline. The most severe
DCIs appeared with methamphetamine, followed by heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. The study
suggests using the data, states could enact regional policies to address the most prominent illegal
drug related issues in their communities.
By reviewing the regional difficulties with differing illegal drugs, one can determine the
method by which to address a more concentrated, local policy in order to ameliorate the most
harm to the society. By cross referencing this article with existing policy data for the most and
least affected areas for each illegal drug, one could theoretically determine if policy affects the
use and widespread negative consequences of illegal drugs at all, and if so, which methods are
most consistent in producing a positive impact. This article could be combined with “Overlap in
attitudes to policy measures on alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs.” in order to propose more
effective ways to limit drug problems, and the best methods to generate public support for these
policies. I believe I will use this article to illustrate a regional problem within the Northeast,
since that is where the study indicates the most pressing drug issues appear, and will then
conduct further research on the worst affected states for each of the controlled drug issues in this
area to illustrate perhaps ineffective policy and to generate a more positive solution.

Shek, Daniel T.L., and Lu Yu. "Prevention of Adolescent Problem Behavior:Longitudinal

Impact
of the Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong." The Scientific World Journal, vol. 11, 2011,
pp.
546-67.

This article examines the relationship between P.A.T.H.S, Positive Adolescent Training
through Holistic Social Programming, and delinquent behaviors and drug use at 19 control
schools and 24 experimental schools in Hong Kong. The groups were not found to be
significantly statistically different initially in terms of academics, race, or socioeconomic
background, but there was a higher average age in the control group than in the experimental
group. In general, students who participated in the P.A.T.H.S. program showed lower levels of
delinquent behaviors and drug use based on an individual curve than the control group based.
There were four types of delinquent behaviors analyzed: sexual experience, staying out with no
permission, running away from home, and trespassing. There were also four types of drug use
analyzed: ketamines, cannabis, pills, and heroin. Rate of change in delinquency was similar
across the board, as well as bearing strong correlation to rate of change in drug usage.
This article is less helpful than I anticipated because I thought it would more evaluate the
interaction between the variables. However, the information presented showed very similar
decreases in both drug use and delinquent behavior, perhaps indicating that with further
statistical analysis of the results of this study, parametric graphs relating the drug use and
delinquency through the third factor the P.A.T.H. program may yield further results on any
potential relationship. This study could also be useful for proposing a prevention solution, as the
P.A.T.H program can reduce both the drug and criminal risks in younger individuals. The
research may present bias against types of drugs evaluated, as it never evaluated alcohol use,
which is more commonly used among young people than heroin or even cannabis. This could
point to a potential research bias against certain types of illicit substances for the purposes of
finding the most convincing data. I am unsure if I will use this article due to the general lack of
specificity that can aid me finding the direct relationship between amount of drug consumption
and severity and duration of violent crime.

United States, Congress, House, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources. The Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs. Testimony of Chief Bruce Glasscock,
Government Printing Office, 2013. 106th Congress, 1st session.

Chief Glasscock spent 30 years of his life in the field of law enforcement. He has a
Bachelor's degree in criminal justice management from the Metropolitan State College in
Denver, and a Master's degree in public administration from the University of Colorado. Chief
Glasscock is the current vice president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The
nation should not legalize drugs and instead increase efforts to combat against drug traffickers
and increase assistance to the addicted to break the cycle of addiction. Between 1995-1996,
heroin addicts increased criminal activity in the form of burglaries to fund their addiction. To
deal with the heroin crisis, the Plano police department took aggressive enforcement action and
used education as a means to reduce heroin demand through PSAs and meetings with
cooperation of schools, churches, and parent meetings. Anonymous, at-home drug testing kits
were also distributed to allow parents to see if their children were using drugs, and necessary
help was provided by locating support organizations. These steps resulted in fewer heroin
overdoses and less heroin available on the streets. Texas has the highest rate of drug smuggling
due to the porous border with Mexico. The strategies are complex, difficult to manage, expensive
to implement, but they are working. Drug use and crime go together because it doesn’t matter if
the drugs can be purchased legally, since the addicts finance their drugs with criminal activity
anyway. According to a NIJ study, median of 68% of arrestees were on drugs at time of the
arrest, 31% of male and female arrestees admitted they were on drugs at the time of their crime,
and 28% of homicides were committed while the perpetrator was on drugs. Drug related
illnesses, death, and crime cost Americans 67 billion each year. Drug use negatively impacts
worker productivity and threatens public safety through mediums of car crashes. As young
Americans see drugs as dangerous, drug use drops significantly, thus messages of
decriminalization and legalization confuse young people and put them at greater risk of drug use,
which in turn threatens our society.
This source made me take into consideration the need for anti-drug messages spread
throughout the young population. Similarly to how cigarettes and tobacco has been discouraged
frequently by smoking companies, health institutes, and various levels of government, similar
campaigns against heroin, meth, and cocaine could be helpful to decrease uses of these drugs
among teens. This source focused less on the detrimental impacts of marijuana on teens and on
the community, but I understand that the ubiquitous conversation, usually supportive, of the
weed legalization movement makes young people think that weed has no negative repercussions
and may actually have health benefits. Through my work with Ms. Murphy, I’ve seen a homicide
case involving a frequent drug user and cocaine and heroin addict. He was using around the time
he committed the homicide, and I believe that had he not been using drugs, he would not have
committed this crime. This is reflected in his fear of becoming addicted again and his new desire
to become an entrepreneur after getting his GED. The idea of burglars funding their LEGAL
drug habits with robberies is an interesting topic, and one I wish to investigate further. SO far,
with this testimony and similar testimonies from Constantine, I believe that people who are more
involved with the effects of drug addiction including the crimes they commit to finance the
crimes, are much more critical towards legalization. I would, however, also like a different point
of view of legalization of illegal drugs, even for medical purposes to treat addiction from a
medical expert. I will use this source to offer first hand, effective experience in reducing drug use
and addiction.

United States, Congress, House, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources. The Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs. Testimony of Honorable John
L. Mica, Government Printing Office, 2013. 106th Congress, 1st session.

Mica is speaking at a hearing which is aimed to determine the effectiveness of current

drug policy and to highlight specific issues and propose solutions. This follows another meeting
on the legalization of illegal substances that occurred a month prior, in June 2013. Drugs harm
people through promoting felonies, overdoses, accidents, and criminal homicides. It is difficult in
most cases to be put in prison for drug use; virtually all drug users who go to prison are violent
offenders, repeat offenders, or a combination of the two. 94% of state prisoners had committed at
least one violent crime or were repeat offenders, up from 90% in 1994-1996. Many of the
individuals in state or federal prison for drug charges murdered, robbed, or assaulted a victim
while using these drugs, or they have trafficked a significant amount of deadly drugs into the
country.
This source offers an opposing point of view to the joint committee hearing on criminal
drug activity in 2008, which asserted that policy was ineffective in managing criminal drug
convictions in terms of severity and treatment opportunities provided to inmates. While the two
do not explicitly contradict the statistics presented by the other, in general, this source seems to
find the conviction of drug addicts to be permissible and encouraged because many of them have
also committed violent crimes or repeat crimes. The most effective way to reconcile the two
sources would be to postulate that while many prisoners incarcerated for drug crimes also
committed violent or repeat crimes, there would be fewer repeat criminals to speak of if there
were more effective manners of treatment after a first-time charge and more preventative
measures supplied to at-risk communities including prenatal care and child care programs.
Further research should be done into the efficacy of such programs reducing violent crime and
not just reducing repeat offenses. While this source is helpful for the statistics it presents, I will
not be using it because the speaker does not have expertise on this topic.

United States, Congress, House, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources. The Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs. Testimony of R. Keith
Stroup, Government Printing Office, 2013. 106th Congress, 1st session.

Stroup is the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws who represents otherwise law abiding citizens who smoke marijuana responsibly.
Marijuana was first outlawed in 1937 because people believed it caused insanity and violence.
Most Americans oppose incarcerating individuals who smoke marijuana. Many people smoke
marijuana recreationally, and there has been no violent epidemic to support the claim that
marijuana causes violence. Marijuana has the potential to alleviate pain, but research has not
been directed in this direction. Legalizing and regulating marijuana would do away with the
black markets and the criminal groups that profit from it. Middle class, normal Americans prefer
marijuana as a drug to others. 43% percent of all drug arrests in America are marijuana users.
President Carter believed that the penalties for possessing a drug should never be more harmful
than possession itself. In the 11 states where it was decriminalized, there was no significant
increase in marijuana usage. By imprisoning marijuana users, the government is wasting law
enforcement that could be better used elsewhere, clogging courts, filling jails with nonviolent
prisoners, and needlessly wrecking the lives of nonviolent citizens.
This source supports the congressional hearing by the joint committee that believes over
75% of the open air marijuana plantations in California are grown and operated by Mexican
criminal gangs. However, this testimony does not provide adequate empirical data to support his
claims, as the law enforcement officers were able to do earlier in this congressional hearing.
There are several points that should be addressed in this article. More research should be
conducted to substantiate his claims that marijuana decriminalization does not increase criminal
activity. His testimony does not contradict the police officers after consideration, as he states that
drug arrests were almost half marijuana possession. However, it was they were not convicted for
felony charges, as may be suggested by his omission of evidence, but it refuted by the testimony
of Constantine. This indicates that less money than is suggested is used housing incarcerated
individuals on marijuana possession charges, information he also failed to cite. Overall, I believe
that the law enforcement officials do not believe that marijuana is the main problem, besides the
reliance of teens on marijuana more than alcohol (which could perhaps be addressed by more
aggressive PSAs as suggested by Officer Glasscock). I would not like to use this source because
while it offers a strong opinion it doesn’t offer enough empirical data to support it.

United States, Congress, House, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resource. The Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs. Testimony of Sandra Bennett,
Government Printing Office, 2013. 106th Congress, 1st session.
 Bennett is the president of Drug Watch International, whose child died because of illegal
drugs. She wishes to prevent the country from regressing to policies from the 1970s which
embraced the responsible use of illegal drugs. Overdoses are tragedies that could have been
prevented by stricter laws and stricter enforcement. It is better to have people in jail for trying
out illegal drugs than dead. Harm reduction is an all encompassing term which tries to increase
the spread of psychoactive, addictive drugs at the cost of society. Most people who advocate for
legalization or decriminalization of illegal drugs use these drugs themselves. The universities and
professors that advocate for drugs have a large, negative influence on their students by
disseminating the information that illegal drugs are not harmful and that using them is a personal
freedom. Media claims that even though teenage drug use has fallen to half of the rate it was in
the 1970s, drug policies have failed and should be completely abandoned (why is this mindset
not applicable to the war on poverty which still sees 20% of children in poverty). Drug use
worsens the impact of poverty. Even trace amounts of cocaine is enough to trigger cardiac arrest.
Proponents of marijuana legalization such as Sterling, head of the Criminal Justice Policy
Foundation have stated that if they legalize illegal drugs of one type, it is more likely to then be
legalized in other types as well.
This was evidently biased by the speaker’s son who died from cardiac arrest caused by
cocaine. However, she makes several significant points, that with unbiased evidence could be
substantial. First, she indicates that the heads of legalization efforts have used the illegal drugs
they are trying to legalize. This indicates a bias on their part for wanting legalization. She also
brings up the scope of measurement when evaluating ineffective drug policies, which she
measures from the 1970s, which were notorious for their drug use. She also brings up the role of
universities, university professors, and the media in spreading the movement for psychoactive
drugs, and I believe that if effective drug policy were to be created, it should address how drugs
can and should be treated at these institutions and in the media. It is also important to note that
legalization of one illegal drug could lead to laxer laws on others, and that any modifications to
policy should be made with this possibility in mind. This source relates to Constantine’s
testimony from the same hearing which asserts that mothers of addicted children never advocate
for the legalization of illicit drugs and Glasscock’s view of the role of the media in the public
perception of the dangers of illegal drugs. It also relates to MacCoun’s testimony as he is a
Professor at University of Berkeley, and it indicates which bias he may present. This makes me
think research should be done on universities’ roles in illicit drug use as well as the discrepancy
between state-level marijuana legalization or decriminalization, and marijuana use still
remaining a federal felony.

United States, Congress, House, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources. The Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs. Testimony of Tom Constantine,
Government Printing Office, 2013. 106th Congress, 1st session.
 Though since the beginning of the drug use movement in the 1960s drug use has been
seen as a right of passage and civil liberty, drug use has destroyed families, cities, and societies.
Harm reduction is a euphemism for legalization, and some proponents propose measures such as
prescribing heroin to addicts, allowing safe spaces for injecting heroin, drug potency testing
officers stationed at raves, and decriminalization of marijuana, as seen through recommendations
of Ethan Nadelmann in a Foreign Affairs Magazine. However, many people who promote
legalization are affluent and removed from the reality of impoverished drug addicts, and these
people do not include mothers of addicted children, religious leaders, and police officers who
have seen the reality of poor addiction first hand. Drug availability is what leads to its increased
usage; criminal syndicates from Latin America have allowed large amounts of pure, cheap drugs
to be readily available to consumers on the streets until people became addicted. Then demand
increases supply, but initially supply drives demand as in the new heroin capital of USA,
Baltimore. In NYC, when more resources were allotted to address the issue of violent crime and
when police officers were encouraged to arrest people and put them into prison, the crime rate
dropped by more a little less than 75%. Under Constantine, the DEA has gone from city to city to
arrest violent drug dealers, and they discovered over 70% of all felons in major cities were under
the influence of drugs at the time of their arrest. Effective prevention, law, and rehabilitation
programs can prevent drug use and violent crime that accompanies it. More teens enter treatment
for marijuana use and dependence than anything else including alcohol according to a report
from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. The
average amount of marijuana possessed in felony convictions is 300 lbs. The most widely abused
drugs in the county are prescription drugs which restrict access; Constantine believes similar
effects if illegal drugs were legalized and controlled. He also believes if legalization advocates
were questioned about the ability of a pilot program running in their neighborhoods, many would
not be in favor. No one believes legalization would improve work habits, study habits, or school
quality because it would only lead to more addiction, more crime, and more problems.
Constantine was former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Association, and during
his tenure he improved the quality and quantity of DEA agents working to enforce drug policy
and modernized intelligence collecting. Since he recently retired, he has the ability to be more
opinionated as he is no longer in as politicized a position as he was. However, he also no longer
has to remain impartial, so his testimony has the potential to be very candid and honest or a
tirade. I also wish to review Nadelmann’s piece in Foreign Affairs Magazine to see his sources
and his reasoning behind proposed measures. Constantine posed significant points including
anecdotal evidence based on his own extensive professional experience working with
communities where drug addiction has become a problem. The statistics he has offered speak
strongly to the need for increased active, aggressive police enforcement. His logic when
addressing the bias of individuals who favor legalization including the debate of supply and drug
demand and the unwillingness for proponents of legalization to allow pilots within their own
neighborhoods diminish the case of his opposition. Additionally, this source has provided me
several further directions I wish to explore including the argument for legalization of illegal
drugs and effective drug prevention programs and rehabilitation programs. I also wish to see the
effect of marijuana legalization on violent crime convictions and prescription drug abuse issues
to validify the Constantine’s claim that those drugs are most widely abused (though not, perhaps
to the worst effect). I want to remember the link between prescription opiate use and heroin and
fentanyl use illegally and the greater supply of illegal drugs drives demand (as stated in this
article). I will use this article in my paper to offer empirical information as well as a strong
opinion in favor of stronger enforcement policies from a someone with first hand experience.

United States, Congress, House, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources. The Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs. Testimony of Robert MacCoun,
Government Printing Office, 2013. 106th Congress, 1st session.

MacCoun is a professor of public policy and law at the University of California at

Berkeley. The testimony summarizes conclusions from a study of drug control alternatives by the
Rand Corp.'s Drug Policy Research Center. Decriminalization means the reduction of
punishment for possession of modest drug amounts, and it has minimal effects on marijuana use.
Legalization allows some form of legal and regulated sale of the substance, and it increases the
number of marijuana users rapidly and significantly. There is less information about heroin or
cocaine legalization. Most likely it would reduce the harmfulness of every use, but the number of
uses per individual and users in a population would grow significantly. With no concrete data
about these drugs, it would be very risky to legalize either substance. However, the prohibition
used by current policy is most likely not the least harmful.
This source offers minimal empirical information in the way of supporting or detracting
from the decriminalization of marijuana. This source also alleged his lack of bias in speaking as
he neither wished to support nor detract from decriminalization of illegal substances. While
MacCoun’s testimony never explicitly stated his support for decriminalization, I believe he
shows a bias for this side of the argument with his statements regarding marijuana
decriminalization. Additionally, without the presentation of empirical data, it is difficult to
ascertain the accuracy of his claims. Similar statements appeared in the testimony of Stroup
during this hearing, so the information regarding decriminalization use is fairly accurate. I
believe more research should be done on the implications of legalizing heroin, as in the article by
Wilson that addresses this issue. I will not use this source in my paper because the data and
solutions he presents are not the most conclusive.

United States, Congress, Joint Economic Committee Congress of the United

States. Illegal Drugs: Economic Impact, Societal Costs, Policy Responses. Government
Printing Office, 2008. 110th Congress, 2nd session.
 This source presents statistics and information for the support of formation of more
effective drug policy, particularly because of the number of people in the United States in prison
for drug related crimes. United states has 5% of the world’s population but 25% of its prison
population. United States, Canada, and Mexico account for 44% of global retail drug sales
according to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. Total economic value of illegal drug
trade is worth $182 billion in the US per year. For example, in California, marijuana is the most
profitable crop, with 80% of open air plantations being run by Mexican criminal gangs. Efforts
to stop drugs entering through Mexico have been ineffective and resulted in border wars. High
school students are reporting easier and cheaper access to illegal drugs, despite the increasing
number of people arrested on drug charges. Diversion programs and drug courts are shown to be
more effective in combating drug use and dependency than the traditional reliance on
enforcement and arrest. More effective strategies to reduce violent crime include birth control,
prenatal care, early learning centers, after school care programs, and nurse visits which increase
learning and reduce mental and physical disability and abuse. United States provides weak links
between drug enforcement and drug treatment, but policy reflects a relaxing of strict war on
drugs methods, such as the creation of extremely limited Drug Courts. There is not enough
analysis done on effective ways to spend money on drug issues, more on the scope of drug
issues.
This source was extremely helpful to me because it was focused on creating the policy to
reduce drug imprisonments within the United States. However, there was little empirical data
from other countries showcasing more effective methods, and most of the conversation seemed
concentrated on how the current system was not effective. This is the first mention of the harm
caused by the war on drugs, since there isn’t treatment programs linked with strict enforcement,
and those imprisoned do not have their problems specifically solved. However, it is important to
note the joint committee hearing of 2008 was an economic committee, and it focused more on
the societal cost of such programs, in essence how to decrease cost or increase monetary profit
by limiting the cost of housing prisoners by treating them. This is not recommending the safest
social option that would limit the physical harm coming to the general public. This offers a
negative bias towards this source, and I question if they are concerned about the public’s safety
since this matter was not mentioned within the hearing. I would like to further research on the
safety implications of fewer drug incarcerations, especially since many of the people involved in
distribution come from Latin American criminal gangs, as stated in the testimonies. I would also
like to research further into the idea of Drug Courts; the questions what they are, what they do,
and if they’re effective could definitely provide a greater understanding of criminal drug
treatment efficacy. Additionally, I would like to conduct more research into drug laws in the
state of Maryland, which is where I will focus on improving the controlled substance policy. I
would like to use this article in my argument because it has a broad range of topics and
specifically addresses how current legislation is ineffective.

Volkow, Nora, et al. "Effects of Cannabis Use on Human Behavior Including Cognition,
 Motivation, and Psychosis: A Review." JAMA Psychiatry, vol. 73, no. 3, 3 Feb. 2016, pp.
292-97.

Cannabis users suffer from lowered cognitive abilities when they are intoxicated, though
prolonged periods of abstinence suggest a large degree of recovery. However, data suggests
adolescents may be the most at risk, as this time is associated with significant brain development
which cannabis interrupts. This is supported by both animal research and human survey data.
However, no significant data presenting profound morphological effects when compared with
adult brains could be found. Connectivity is impaired with prolonged cannabis use, and altered
mental functioning is present in cannabis users both when resting and during cognitive testing.
Long term cannabis use is associated with apathy, lack of goal orientation, impaired motivation,
and underachievement educationally. This may also reflect that cannabis itself becomes a main
motivator, and the users interest in other activities is thereby decreased. Cannabis is also
consistently associated with psychosis and is considered a preventable risk factor for the
condition. There is a strong mechanistic link between cannabis and schizophrenia.
This article is helpful because it more fully evaluated the negative consequences of
cannabis use, and it articulated the many unknowns in terms of the long term effect of heavy
cannabis usage. This article also recommended further research being conducted before
significant policy changes in favor of allowing easier access to marijuana, as it is difficult to
predict many adverse effects that may only appear in a larger population. The possible outcomes
of marijuana are terrifying, which many articles on the basis of marijuana use fail to
acknowledge. Combined with information from Hasin, the potential side effects that could be
occurring in a growing population of people suggests stricter policy measures are necessary than
are currently in place. As of now, the best course of action would seem to be to allow marijuana
for medical purposes only and to prohibit recreational use.

Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs." Commentary, vol. 89, no.
2, Jan.-Feb. 1990, p. 21
Wilson was appointed the Chairman of the National Advisory Council for Drug Abuse
Prevention. He hypothesizes that there is a relatively stable group of people addicted to heroin
and that they simply age without recruiting many more individuals. Part of the reason there are
few new recruits is because of a briefly interrupted trade due to the Turkish and French
governments; though they were quickly replaced with Mexico, it stemmed the young recruits
enough to stall increase in addicts. Many were also afraid for their health since overdoses and
shared needles killed publicly and in large numbers. Treatment had little effect on the decreased
numbers of addicts, and several studies indicate one of the biggest impacts comes from price and
supply. If legalization occurred, it may solve health threats of heroin, but there is no negative
consequences to stop people from using it and becoming addicted. Drug users usually recruit
their friends to join. The failure of medical heroin legalization was demonstrated in Great Britain
where it spurred a youth drug culture.
 This source offered valuable commentary on a system that actually legalized heroin, one
of the many hotly debated issues surrounding the push for legalization. According to Wilson, this
was ultimately a failure, but I would like to see the legalization of British heroin addressed
through the eyes of someone in favor of legalization. In this manner, the legalization movement
can comment on why the British system was unsuccessful, and how other systems can avoid
these errors if attempting to legalize. While I do not believe I will use this source, it brought to
my attention a new instance of failed legalization effort.