CJ411-Chat 9 By: Amy Ng, ABD

Objectives Unit Reminders Decriminalization Harm reduction

Decriminalization Decriminalization refers to the absence of laws punishing people for using drugs, as is the case with alcohol and tobacco, drugs restricted only to those below a certain chronological age.

Decriminalization John Kaplan (1983b: 101) poses a policy question: ‘‘Could we not lower the total social costs of heroin use and the government response to it by allowing the drug to be freely and cheaply available in liquor stores, or as an over-the- counter drug?’’ Such policy would be consistent with the U.S. approach to other unhealthy habits, such as cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol, and overeating, or the approach to sports such as mountain climbing, skydiving, bull riding, football, and boxing

Decriminalization Edward Brecher (1972: 528) notes that most of the harmful aspects of heroin use are the result of its being illegal: ‘‘Many American morphine and heroin addicts before 1914 led long, healthy, respectable, productive lives despite addiction—and so do a few addicts today.

Decriminalization Pros v. Cons

Decriminalization Models: 1. Dangerous drugs can be dispensed only through government-controlled clinics or specially licensed medical personnel and only for short-term treatment purposes; unauthorized sale or possession entails criminal penalties. Long term maintenance is limited to the use of methadone. This is basically the approach that is currently used in England. 2. Dangerous drugs can be prescribed by an authorized medical practitioner for treatment or maintenance; criminal penalties are imposed for sale or possession outside medical auspices. This is the old British system. 3. Dangerous drugs can be sold and used as tobacco and alcohol products are; that is, nonprescription use by adults is permitted. This was the case in the United States before the Harrison Act.

Decriminalization Models: 1. Providing safer options by, for example, making coca tea readily available but significantly limiting cocaine and severely restricting crack, which, along with morphine and heroin, would be available only through prescription or licensing arrangements. There would be no incentives to attract new users. 2. Offering and encouraging safer ingestion. For example, smoking opium would be readily available, but intravenous drug use would be severely restricted. 3. Permitting cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana and criminalizing large-scale operations. 4. Banning prodrug advertising—including that for tobacco and alcohol products— while encouraging education and antidrug advertising, which would be financed through drug-related tax revenues.

Legalization Marijuana in California

Harm Reduction Like Switzerland, a number of other European countries have been exploring a third model of response to drug abuse: harm reduction. Harm reduction is offered as an alternative to the supply reduction strategy—aggressive law enforcement and pressure on producer nations—and the demand reduction strategy—treatment and prevention. This alternative recognizes that while abstinence is desirable, it is not a realistic goal. Instead, this approach examines harm from two points of view: harm to the community and harm to the drug user. The focus, then, is on lowering the amount of harm to each.

Harm Reduction Principles: Pargmatism Humanistic values Focus on harm Balancing costs and benefits Priority of immediate goals

British Harm Reduction Model The modern British system involves two barely compatible policies operating at the same time: a political policy whose focus is on supply reduction and penal policies in the belief that elimination of drug use is possible, and a services policy whose focus is on local prevention campaigns and providing a variety of local services, including needle- exchange schemes, advice and counseling services, and a variety of prescribing options from short-term outpatient detoxification to long-term prescribing and rehabilitation. ‘‘At the heart of this approach is the view that drug use cannot be eliminated, but its most harmful consequences for the individual, society, and public health can be moderated’’