Drugs and Drug prohibition regimes - Universitetet i oslo · Institutt for kriminologi og...
Transcript of Drugs and Drug prohibition regimes - Universitetet i oslo · Institutt for kriminologi og...
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Drugs and Drug prohibition
regimes
Jur 5101 Criminology. 15.04.2011
Camilla Lied
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
TOPICS
• What signifies the drugrelated subculture, especially
the heroin user culture?
• Why is this subculture appealing to some people?
• What role does the prohibition play?
• How does prohibition affect the members of the
subculture?
• What effects would legalization of illicit drugs have?
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Heroin addicts speak
• Short insight in the most common way of describing
heroin addiction:
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOPOK24g9Cc&f
eature=player_detailpage
• Many people live like this, all over the world. Why? – Because of the evil of heroin?
– Because of prohibition? Despite the prohibition?
– Because of something else?
Important discussion in Norwegian criminology
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
What is heroin?
• Medical term: diacetylmorphine
• Invented in 1874 by C.R Wright, who saw it as a useless drug.
• Reinvented 1898, commercialized by Bayer, and got the name Heroin.
• Thougt to be a non-addictive substitute for morphine.
• Sedative, relaxes muscles
• Used mostly as a medicine for coughs, also for children.
• Seen as a wonder-medicine, Bayer sold a ton of it to different
countries in 1899.
– Available as losenges, tablets, water-soluble powder and heroin
elixir.
(Gotfredsen, Frantzsen & Recke 2008)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Heroin prohibited
• 1905: discovered that it was in fact addictive.
• Bayer stopped selling it
• 1924: production and use prohibited.
• Since then, the prohibition policy system has only
grown.
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Today: Drugs: policies and strategies of
intervention
a) Prevention: drug prevention programmes, mass media campaigns,
reducing access for youth, changing attitudes;
b) Services for drug users: methadone, counseling, probation / parole
supervision, heroin substitution (UK), needle exchange (purpose:
improve health, reduce overdose deaths);
c) Supply control: policing and prosecution of traffickers / dealers
(purpose: reduce availability);
d) Prescription regimes: allow psychoactive substances to be
consumed for approved purposes
e) Criminal sanctions: increase penalties for drug possession and use
(Purpose: deterrence of drug use)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Drugs as a problem
Since the late 1970s: progressive criminalization of
drug use and possession
“War on drugs“ - dramatic growth in
incarceration for drug offenses. US federal system –
prisoners on drug charges comprise half of the
prison population
Enforcement programmes: eradication, interdiction
of smuggled goods, investigation, street level
enforcement
Christie and Bruun (1985): drug users as ‘suitable
enemies’
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Global ‘war on drugs’
International drug control treaties mandate domestic legislation
The dominant role of the USA (over 700 drug officers abroad; certification /
designation programme)
Global drug control and prohibition efforts have had questionable effects (see
UNODOC Annual Reports)
Significant increase in global production
The variety of national drug policies
Third world countries: drugs as a source of income and a source of violence
(Nadelmann 1989)
Mexico: war on drugs: thousands killed in a war between powerful drugcartells
and the law enforcement.
About Mexico, USA and the war on drugs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1eOaLi0_o
Norway: prioritizes law enforcement strategies – high mortality rates among
long-term users
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Lalander (2003) Hooked on Heroin
Drug users as ‘outsiders’ (Becker)
Development of a subculture: an alternative system of
norms – transgression as a central part of their lifestyle
subcultural studies: understanding how people make
sense of their everyday life (drug users not as ‘irrational
victims)
Lalander (p. 8): how can a number of young people
use heroin and continue to do so despite the fact that it
is taboo-ridden and life-threatening?
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Trainspotting
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkYj56LW4ag&feature=play
er_detailpage
• Youngsters ”drifting away” from the conventional society, with a
confused and indignated elder generation watching.
• The making of a subculture through slang, certain taste in
music, style in clothes, way of acting.
• Begins with fun and exitement, ends in ”hell”. Sexually immoral
behaviour, death, illusion, paranoia, hallusination, violence,
breaking up of families, child neglect, everything falls apart as
you drift away.
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Normless?
• “The subculture`s members do not appear to have absorbed
the morality that established society`s representatives, for
example parents and teachers, have tried to impress on them,
but in actuality they have. The subculture develops in antithesis
to established culture. Its members are carriers of both modern
society`s norms and the subculture`s, but once in the
subculture they have a tendency to act from the subculture`s
perspective” (Lalander 2003:7).
• “normlessness” is not the answer. (Lalander)
• Could it be that the subculture membership is useful in any
way?
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Useful?
• If the subculture didn`t give its members some advances
compared to what they would get without, it wouldn`t be
interesting to participate in it, helping to reconstruct it. They
were, thus, neither forced to learn nor brainwashed; rather they
found the education of the subculture challenging, thrilling and
highly instructive» (Lalander: 12)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Internal norms, defining
subculture
Importance of internal rules, solidarity and
boundaries against outside threats. The heroin
subculture has several norms that define the
subculture. -What outside threats?
PL: The threat from outside is primarily about
established society`s representatives, the police who
use all possible means to prevent the ingestion and
sale of illegal substances. Society`s rule enforcers
attempt to uncover the subculture`s activities and,
thus, influence the shaping of the culture and the
ritual activities engaged in by the subculture. (p. 59)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Group boundaries
• Mary Douglas: Illegitimate subculture separated
from society, boundaries pronounced in comparison
to other group`s boundaries.
• Heroin subculture, number one threat: the police. – Mostly the drug squad, in uniform or plain clothing
Daily life in the heroin subculture can be seen as a
never ending cat and mouse-gamestory. The cat
always tries to have the upper hand, the mouse
needs to know all the tricks to stay away from the
trap.
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Illustration: The wire
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
Sgj78QG9Bg&feature=player_detailpage
• Good illustration of the cat and mouse-game.
• Like in Tom and Jerry-cartoon, the story keeps repeating itself.
Cat never gives up, mouse knows all the tricks.
• War on drugs, never ending police work, still goes on despite
poor results.
• The subculture survives
• The police gets more funding
• Drug supply still the same
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
P. Bourgois (2003): In Search of respect
Street culture: resistance and self-destruction
violent inner-city street culture, dominated by the illegal drug economy, has
become the employer of the last resort for youth in El Barrio
the street culture offers its participants possibilities for achieving alternative
forms of dignity, creativity and conspicuous consumption, as well as becomes
an active agent in personal degradation and community ruin
The young men’s tough macho cultural identity, which could function
effectively on the factory shop floor, is dysfunctional in the feminised, white-
collar ‘yuppie’ environments, which demand subservient modes of interaction.
Sandberg and Pedersen (2009): Street Capital: Black cannabis dealers in a
white welfare state
Masculinity and the cannabis economy
Street capital: toughness and racial otherness as a source of ‘capital’
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
”The heroin mind”
• In the beginning: not ”hooked”. Recreational use, fx in
weekends.
• After a while, change ”the heroin mind”
• ”Increasingly, existence centres on heroin and the different
ways of providing economically for it. They become addicts in
the full sense of the word. Their daily life becomes dominated
by thoughts of heroin, highs and lows, and obtaining it. (…)
Time perspectives, for those who are heavily dependent on
heroin and who live at the bar level, are short and focused on
one thing: heroin. To live at ”bag level” means never earning
much money and having a very short-term drug-plan.
Furthermore, the bag user is dependent on the dealers and
must maintain a good relationship with them (Lalander, p.60)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
The heroin mind 2
• Only aspects relating to heroin is of intrest, also
friends
• Always alert and looking for possible drug
squad/police
• Spotting public toilets
• Spotting opportunities for theft or other ways to get
hold of money
• Seeing goods in the shop in regard to the price of
heroin
• Always planning to the secure the next fix
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Lack of trust
• Even though a subculture, there is a lack of trust
between the members. People ”work alone”.
• Stealing from friends/sponging
• Snitching
• heroin develops from a collective project into an
individual one (Lalander p.67)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Fake it til`you make it
I think it`s unfair, that because one has become an addict, that doesn`t
mean that you are a a person without feelings. Many people think so;
that when a person is a heroin-addict, he doesn`t have feelings. The
think you have ”junked” your feelings away. Well, we do that alot, but
of course, we do have feelings like everyone else. The thing is, we
have a bright side and a dark side. That is the awful thing about this
drug, it makes you able to keep on going, it helps you to fake it till you
make it. Until you come home. That is when the tears come, all your
problems in life appear inside you. You just don`t do that in the streets.
Because, if you show your tears in the streets, you`ve lost. You have
to put your concience aside if you want to survive on the streets. An
that is painful. It`s fucking painful to be without your conscience! So
when you do things in the streets, you just can`t think about it.
Because then, it is a question of survival (danish heroin addict). (Lied
2011)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Lalander`s conclusions/some
important points
• In the beginning, using heroin is all about action, freedom and
togetherness
• After a while, loneliness, distrust, working har to get the next
dose.
• To survive in the heroin subculture, you need a strong caracter,
and the ability to know the game and the unwritten rules.
• Prohibition makes heroin expensive, and police work toward the
users shapes the subculture; Stress, distrust. Playfulness
has become suspicion and undemanding togetherness has
become caution. (p.167)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Legalize it? Regulate it?
• Recent years: ever inreasing pressure and argumentation
towards legalizing drus, the war on drugs seems to have failed.
• Fx: ”LEAP”; Law enforcement against prohibition.
– Former police officers who worked in fx. ”drug squads”.
• Ethan Nadelmann, Drug policy alliance. Web:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/
• Discussion difficult, partly because of lack of knowledge about
drugs, and, according to fx. LEAP, DPA, the demonization of
drugs, especially heroin.
• Main discussion point; is the war on drugs the reason for the
drug-related problems, or should we blame the drugs
themselves?
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Difficult debate, strong feelings
• Discussions of drug policy often has strong
opponents on both, or all sides, discussions often
energetic, all standing strongly on their beliefs.
• Example: Ethan Nadelmann on 60 minutes, debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
42YMN3xEWc&feature=player_detailpage
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Nadelmann (1989): Drug
prohibition in the united states
• Growing critisism toward the drug prohibition and war on drugs.
Nadelmann argues that a legalization or decriminalization is
necessary.
• Legalization incorporates the many arguments and growing
sentiment for the de-empasizing our traditional reliance on
criminal justice resources to deal with drug abuse and for
emphasizing instead drug abuse, prevention, treatment, and
education, as well as noncriminal restrictions on the availability
and use of psychoactive substances and positive inducements
to abstain from drug abuse (Nadelmann 1989)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Legalization; many meanings
• Different views about the degree and nature of legalization needed.
– 1) the removal of all criminal sanctions and taxes on the production and
sale of all psychoactive substances with the possible exeption of
restrictions on sales to children.
– 2) Limiting legalization to one of the safest (relatively speaking) of all illicit
substances: marijuana.
– 3) ”Medical” oversight modelsimilar to today`s methadone maintenance
programs.
– 4) (E.Nadelmann`s view): Combining legal availability of some or all illicit
drugs with vigorous efforts to restrict consumption by means other than
resort to criminal sanctions. Many supporters of this dual approach
simultaneously advocate greater efforts to limit tobacco consumption and
the abuse of alcohol as well as a transfer of government resources from
anti-drug law enforcement to drug prevention and treatment. (Nadelmann
1989, part 1)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Legalization: risks
• E.N: Neither drug legalization nor enforcement of
anti-drug laws promises to ”solve” the drug problem.
• Legalization can also present certain risks. – Will increase the availability of drugs
– Will decrease prices of drugs
– Will remove the deterrent power of the criminal sanction may
increase drug use/abuse.
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Why take the risks?
• Nadelmann presents three reasons why these risks
should be taken by legalizing drugs. – Drug control strategies that rely primarily on criminal justice
measures are significantly and inherently limited in their capacity to
curtail drug abuse
– Many law enforcement efforts are not only of limited value but also
highly costly and counterproductive; indeed, many of the drug-
related evils tha most people identify as part and parcel of the
”drug problem” are in fact the costs of drug prohibition policies.
– The risks of legalization may well be less than most people
assume, particularly if intelligent alternative measures are
implemented. (Nadelmann 1989, p.1)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
What are the costs of prohibition?
• EN: criminal justice efforts do have an effect, but not
in the way that was planned. It seems to have little
effect on price, availability and consumption of illicit
drugs.
• The criminalization of the drug market has proven
highly costly and counterproductive in much the
same way as the national prohibition of alcohol in the
1930`s. (Nadelmann 1989:2)
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Connection drugs-crime?
• Is the connection between drugs and crime a ”natural” og a
constructed connection? Nadelmann has 5 examples of connections
between drugs and crime:
• 1) Nadelmann: production, sale, purchase, possession of marijuana,
cocaine etc. are crimes. An absense of prohibition this wouldn`t be
considered crimes. crime rates would decrease.
• 2) Many commit crimes like burglary and robbery in order to pay for
drugs. Drugs cost more than alcohol and tobacco because they are
illegal. Legalization would lead to a lower cost, which could reduce the
need to commit such crimes.It has been proven that methadone and
giving heroin to addicts, reduces crime.
• Report from CNN about giving heroin to addicts:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/health/2009/10/14/newton.u
k.heroin.clinic.cnn.html
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Connection drugs-crime 2
• 3) Research showed that about half of illicit drug users who were interviewed in
prison, did not try illicit drugs undtil after their first incarceration. Nadelmann:
perhaps many of the same factors that lead individuals into lives of crime also
push the in the direction of substance abuse. it is possible that legalization
would diminish this connection by removing from the criminal subculture the
lucrative opportunities that now derive from the illegality of the drug market.
(p.3)
• 4) Some connection with some drugs, such as crack. Dilemma: no drug is as
strongly associated with violence as alcohol. Why, then , is it legal?
• 5) The violent, intimidating and corrupting behavior of drug traffickers. Illegal
markets breed violence. – Both because they attract criminally minded and
violent individuals and because paticipants in the market have no resort to legal
institutions to reolve their disputes (p.4)
Nadelmann: no prohibition would make the traffickers jobless.
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Human costs of prohibition
• Nadelmann: Criminalization of a an enormous
number of people.
• Illicit drug production using dangerous fertilizers and
blending fx. heroin with other synthetic substances
for profit healt danger to users. Overdoses
because of unexpectedly potent or impure drugs.
• HIV/AIDS. Prohibition, lack of harmreductive projects
such as needle exchange, and also strict police
control in the streets can lead to more people
sharing needles.
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Reasons for legalization
• Nadelmann: A drug control policy based predominantly on approaches other
than criminal justice (…) offers a number of significant advantages over the
current criminal justice focus in controlling drug use and abuse. It shifts control
of production, distribution, and, to a lesser extent, consumption out of the hands
of criminals and into the hands of government licencees, it affords consumers
the opportunity to make far mor informed decisions about the drugs they buy
than is currently the case. It dramatically lessens the likelihood that drug
consumers will be harmed by impure, unexpectedly potent, or misidentified
drugs.
• It corrects the hypocritical and dangerous message that alcohol and tobacco
are somehow safer than many illicit drugs. It reduces by millions of dollars
annually government expenditures on drug enforcement and simultaneously
raises additional billions in tax revenues. And it allows government the
opportunity to shape consumption toward relatively safer psychoactive
substances and modes of consumption.(E:N 1989:7).
Institutt for kriminologi og rettssosiologi
Conclusions
• Drug prohibition and the war on drugs seems to
have large human and economic costs.
• Police enforcement towards the users, might be
more damaging to the users, than the drug-use in
itself.
• Probibition doesn`t seem to have many positive
effects.
• Still, war on drugs goes on. Maybe there are other
reasons for the war on drugs?