Arguments for the war on drugs

The prohibition and the war on drugs

It has been suggested that the prohibitions of illegal drugs do not eliminate the market. However do increase the rate of violent crimes and self-harming such as overdose. Although no solid data has been collected in the UK, evidence from USA Statistics highlight that since the current war on drugs began in 1971 homicide death rates as well as law enforcement expenditure increased. According to Professor Angela Dills it is significant to recognise that during this period of prohibitions there is indication the elimination of use does not happen rather, prohibitions covert to black markets which are peaceful and legal in their own right (Miron, JA.1999).

In black markets the helping hand of law enforcements are not available. Thus when clashes arise regarding money, product quality or sales territory. Drug dealers are forced to resolve these problems on their own, resulting into violence to resolve disputes.

Health and moral problem for society

As we know policy makers and the government are upholding the battle to fight for the war on drugs. The prohibition of illegal drugs is based on the notion of the health and moral issue, therefore the eradication of drugs would be beneficial. This is articulated through public safety, health and economic costs.

If drugs become more easily accessible then it can lead to greater harm for children which can lead to children of any age being able to use drugs. Also can cause more addicts in society which can affect public safety immensely and then the social structure starts to breakdown. Thus affecting the sanctions of social control. For example if we legalized drugs it would mean more people would do it in the private sphere such as the home. If we take our public servants such as the police or surgeons legalising illicit drugs would have a higher risk impact on society. Being on an operating table with a surgeon who is under the influence can have a bigger danger

Anyone around us could be a danger- unknowingly if it is legalized- causing lack of stability

Youth and drugs

The government’s attempt to strategically tackle drugs began in 1998, The BCS is used to help understand and target the reduction of drug abuse among 16-24 year olds. The wide range of sample group in age is used to help understand trends (if there are any) and an estimate of which age group are most vulnerable.

(Source: The home office, The British crime survey, 1996 -2005)

The table produced by the BCS clearly highlights the success of monitoring drug use amongst young people. From 1996 to 2004/5 there has been a drop in drop us. Although the drop is not a major fall the 3% less use of drugs is better than having over 30% of young adults involved in drugs. As time progresses and technology improves and more money is invested into regulating how drugs get into the hands of young people statistics may drop.

Arguments against war on drugs

This segment will be exploring how other criminological theories inform our understanding on the drug and crime debate. Labelling through discourse and rational choice offer substantive contributions against the war on drugs. The concept of drugs use links closely to the study of labelling theorist Howard Becker (1963).Through research and policy implications our knowledge of drugs is constructed through expertise knowledge on who ‘uses drugs’ and ‘how drugs are used’ and these are established through discourses such as punishment for the labelled users. Instead of looking at why particular social groups get involved in crime, labelling theorist seek to see why individuals may accept the label as ‘deviant’; as no act is inherently criminal itself (Glen, R et al, 2015). Foucault refers to the term discourse as an explanation of power relationships expressed through society (Grace,W and Mchoul,A.W.1995:35). His concept of ‘power and knowledge’ uses agents such as the media as the ‘powerful’ agency that inform, glamorize or stigmatise ‘the drug users’ who are punished through the criminal justice system and are in more cases likely to be incarcerated who are normally black- African American working class males(Glen,R et al, 2015).

This is an example of how power can be applied through the media to inform society with information of what the illegal drugs user looks like. However these bad labels may led to further deviance and also in some cases people are addicted to drugs or it might be a medical problem.

It is also key to consider the explanation choice theorist offer on the debate on drugs .It is contended that it is in the right of individuals to decide what substances they put into their body, legal or illegal drugs, this is not something that should not be decided by the state. To preface this argument rational choice theorist offer an explanation that individuals have free will. Cornish and Clarke (1987) proposed their theory based on the assumptions that “Criminals act to gain the greatest pleasure through crime” (Gaines, L.K and Kremling, J.2013:83). This relates to the idea of freedom in the neo-liberal state. This idea is exercised through the individuals’ freedom of right and responsibility. Thus people who take drugs have the freedom to indulge in drugs as much as they desire. Other expert knowledge constructed through discourse include operation through public health. Harm minimisation and official discourse encourages users to ‘harm safely ‘.For example strategies for drug misuser’s attendance to support drug programmes are seen as more beneficial to reduce the abuse of drugs. The harm minimisation approach aims to address licit/ illicit drugs and alcohol issues by reducing the harmful consequences it has on the individual’s welfare, public health and society. This idea constructs the recreational user who makes rational, free choice. Per contra dependant drug users are constructed as sick, irresponsible, bad decision makers who lack reasoning skills.
However this notion can be countered that choice theory only makes an assumption that individual have ‘free will’. The paradoxical argument of how safe

Also another idea that argues against the war on drugs is the toleration of other dangerous drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco as well as some prescription and over the counter substances suggests a sense of hypocrisy. For example tobacco is a lot more harmful to the body than drugs such a marijuana, tobacco also increase the chances on cancer.

END THE WAR ON DRUGS FACT

Other websites/ sources of information regarding drugs..

There are many other websites and sources that can be of use for those of you who wish to learn more on the topic of the war on drugs..First of all there is the gov website (https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-drugs-misuse-and-dependence). This is very useful as it gives up to date statistics regarding all sort of information on drugs. For example,“crimes related to drugs cost the UK £13.3 billion every year” (Gov, 2013). This gives a more realistic understanding of the seriousness of drugs and as the government implement the laws related to drugs ad for drug users it would help to see why and what they do. Another useful website about drugs is the NHS (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/drugs/Pages/Drugshome.aspx). This gives knowledge on the effects of drugs, how those on drugs can get help, advice for families and even has real life stories from parent’s whose children have been addicted to drugs. The NHS play an important role in the topic of drugs because they treat drug users and provide a deeper understanding about it such as the emotional and physical affects of drugs. They are those experts who provide society and government with this information and without this knowledge it would prove difficult to see the realistic effect of drugs.

Below are some other websites and useful sources on the battle on the war on drugs.

1. Success story of police tackling the drug trade of cocaine in 2012 – Southampton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj7zX9wLVP0

2. The Gov UK website from the Home office

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/drugs-international-comparators

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-drugs-misuse-and-dependence

3. Data released from the home house on statistics on drug misuse finding in 2013/14 from the crime survey in England and wales. This documents informs the reader on the latest national statistics for England.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335993/snr_drug_misuse_2013_14.pdf

4. https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-drugs-misuse-and-dependence

Should “expert” or government knowledge be called into question?

Drugs is a very controversial subject which means in terms of laws and policies regarding the legalization of drugs, it needs to be carefully examined. To consider whether expert or government knowledge should be called in question about drugs is debateable. This is because to a degree what medicals expert understanding is highly important, as we believe that they are right. Medical expert claim drugs are a damaging substance and can lead to many problems and harm for society and the individual. Criminologists such as Becks and Giddens state, “ the importance of expert knowledge associated with certain behaviours will lead to decisions to avoid risk” (Williams, 2013: 27). Taking this into account government or expert knowledge should only be called into question if drugs are becoming a consistent issue. For example if most high crime rates fall around drugs or if society is becoming more at risk due to drugs. It is important for them to be fully aware around such a topic and keep their knowledge revised. This is evident in Pearson’s (2001) explored research of The Lancet, regarding the “long term effects of smoking cannabis and noticed how they changed within a few years” (Williams, 2013: 27). This shows how the law is often having to being changed to fit the safety of society. So before Cannabis was classed in 2004-2009 as a class C drug, meaning it was less harmful, whereas now it has been reclassified as a class B drug meaning it is more harmful. This shows how experts and government are constantly aware of the issue of drugs as it affects the laws and policies put in place or deciding to put in place new ones. If this weren’t the case then it would be necessary to question their knowledge to a more serious extent but to a certain extent it can be questionable. This is due to the debate amongst society as to whether drugs should be legalised.

Drug related themes (Governmentality, othering, responsiblilisation, marginalisation)

Drugs as whole can relate to a lot of different themes that can help understand more about whether drugs should be legalised or not. One being is governmentality, which Foucault describes as “power that presupposes the capacity of social and political actors to act freely, but shapes the way the freedom is exercised”(Torfing et al, 2012: 66). Government plays an important role in shaping the law of drugs and drug users. This is because they have the ability to observe, monitor and regulate and shape behaviour of individuals. One way it can do so is through punishment such as going to prison. From which it would help drug users to redeem themselves as well as give them consequences for their actions. Drugs can also lead to dangerousness, as a person may not be aware of their actions under the influence of drugs. But also to “perceive the dangerousness of drugs may determine whether a drug is legalised and the penalty for possession or distribution of drugs” (Dunn, 2011:240). So depending on what types of drugs are considered harmful, it can affect social and political policies but also to an extent ensure safety of society.

The term ‘othering’ has also been a drug related concern, as the normalization of drugs tends to be blurred. This refers to drug users who are stereotyped as outsiders and not seen as normal. Legitimate discourses are able to have the “authority to invoke disciplinary procedures to reform or punish individuals before they can return to society” (Blackman, 2004: 144). And only until they are considered normal enough will they be able to return to society. But this is far fetched to an extent, as what is considered normal is different to everyone. The extent to which drugs are seen as a risk tends to be exaggerated and drug control policies then tend to be dependent on such un-contextualized scenarios.

When considering the topic of drugs responsibilisation is an important factor to consider. There seems to have been increased trust in drug users within policy and practice. This is because the government believe by allowing drug users to be responsible for their actions in hope it would possibly reduce harm deriving from social and legal sanction surrounding drugs” (Davies, 1992:164) can cause them. But it can be argued there is no assurance it can reduce the use of drugs completely as fighting an addiction of drugs is difficult. To allow a drug user to be responsible for how much they use, can be risky to the extent as they may abuse having this liability. Therefore for drug users to have responsibilitation can be good to a limit, there would need to be controls in place for this procedure to work effectively.

Marginalisation is another important theme when considering the topic of war on drugs. It explains how those individuals who turn to drugs tend to feel excluded from the social world. This is further explained on the assumption that “ drug addicts try to escape into an experience which becomes seen as a dropping out experience” (Moatti, 2000:192). This then leads them to feel like they don’t belong in society and may believe they are at fault. Also leading on to the idea that this may cause illicit drug users to turn to drugs in the first place. Criminologists explain that use of substances becomes the initial deviance, which leads onto negativity, from which the process of marginalisation begins. Then the individual will go onto forming a bond with those in this similar situation.