« Split Florida Supreme Court upholds imposition of maximum sentence based in part on defendant's claim of innocence | Main | Fourth Circuit panel finds probation sentence for abusive police officer procedurally and substantively unreasonable »
December 3, 2021
"Moral Panic and the War on Drugs"
The title of this post is the title of this new article now available at SSRN authored by Phil Lord. Here is its abstract:
This Article analyzes the War on Drugs as a social phenomenon. It argues that such an analysis, which rejects the assumption that collective, institutionalized behavior is generally rational, can help us understand key aspects of why we continue to marginalize disadvantaged individuals. If the War on Drugs is a war and wars are won or lost, there is no question we lost. Whatever drug-related evil that war sought to eradicate, whether drug consumption, trafficking, or addiction, the data clearly shows that “drugs won.”
Along the way, we nonetheless persisted — and largely still do. We filled prisons, lost lives, and shattered hopes and dreams. Those we hurt the most were already marginalized. To state that we lost is unhelpful and insufficient. Of course, we did. And we can draw obvious lessons that medicine and psychology work better than carceral institutions and that no one benefits from marginalizing already marginalized and often sick individuals.
If the War on Drugs never worked, more salient questions are to be asked about why we fought it. This Article posits that the War on Drugs is not about drugs, crime, or addiction: it is about us. It is about why we cede to fear, anxiety, and irrationality. It is about why we stigmatize and hurt the most vulnerable. Like other irrational and counterproductive policies, the War on Drugs is not an anomaly. It bears close resemblance to other wars we fought (and fight) against the disempowered: witches, gays, Muslims, and others.
December 3, 2021 at 12:24 PM | Permalink
Comments
What a provocative analogy. Kudos to the mensch Phil Lord.
Posted by: Brenda Rossini | Dec 3, 2021 8:41:27 PM
Disagreement with a given policy is branded a "moral panic" and said to arise solely from ignorance and bigotry.
After a few decades, this smear becomes tiresome, but the "look-down-your-nose-at-these-wahoos" narrative goes on.....and on and on. Those who toss off this sort of insult tend to be the very same people who in the next breath mourn the loss of civility. What a hoot.
Pot has largely won its part of the drug debate, yup. The hard drugs are still losing by an enormous margin, and it's not because of Puritanism or wahooism. It's because they're destructive and not infrequently lethal. If you think otherwise, fine, start your 12 year-old on them and see how you like the results.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 12:09:39 AM
Mr. Otis - Perhaps you can comment upon the lowered rates of deaths from drug overdose, as well as a decline in rates of HIV infections, in Portugal, after they modified their drug policies (i.e. decriminalization). I would be interested in your thoughts.
Posted by: SG | Dec 4, 2021 3:04:25 AM
Brenda get a clue. We as a society should be locking away Kingpins and people who are running and participating in cartel's and violence. Bringing in their poison to the poorest people in this Country. You look down your nose thinking, lock them all up, when not so long ago, the same was done to people who drank. Yes, I'm talking to you who right now is probably on her 3rd glass of wine. We are filling up our Federal Prisons with people who where not even caught with drugs, they are in there because of other people caught with drugs. Who throw fairy tail amounts of drugs on people they claim they, "SAW THEM WITH" to get a lighter sentence. The Feds then charge these poor people with conspiracy when the only thing they have done wrong is maybe use drugs and have this person as a friend. We spend more imprisoning the people a year than a rehab would cost. Rehab would not destroy people and their children's lives and stomp on our constitution by imprisoning people with no evidence, forcing them to plead guilty, which the FEDS do every day, violate your rights. I bet when if it happened to your kid you would feel differently, why are you even on here? I'm so disgusted with the this country, it's government and the idiots who never in their lives put themselves in other peoples shoes.
Posted by: Johah | Dec 4, 2021 3:57:41 AM
Bill, in addition to pot, other drugs that seem to be winning the drug debate include psilocybin mushrooms, ketamine, and MDMA.
Posted by: Curious | Dec 4, 2021 7:34:26 AM
SG --
There are about 184 nations in the world -- and there is Portugal too. None of the other nations has decriminalization to anything like the extent that Portugal does, nor do any of that country's neighbors. I think they are better situated to assess Portugal's experience than either of us is. When none is following its policies, that is a lesson. I would also note that the majority of the countries in the Mideast, Africa and the Orient penalize drugs not only uniformly, but more harshly than the US does.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 10:16:25 AM
Curious --
"Bill, in addition to pot, other drugs that seem to be winning the drug debate include psilocybin mushrooms, ketamine, and MDMA."
If you have polling on the approval for the use of those things, please provide a link. I have never seen such a poll, nor am I aware of any reliable statistics on how many people use them out of our population of roughly 331,000,000.
Here is a poll about the approval for decriminalization for pot, cocaine, LSD, meth, heroin and a few more. The results are not particularly close.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/drug-legalization-poll_n_5162357
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 10:33:28 AM
Hey Bill, I don't have polling, but I'm not sure that's the best way to measure where this debate is headed. Polling 20 years ago showed 64% opposition to legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and look where we are now! (source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/2902/americans-support-legalization-marijuana-medicinal-use.aspx)
In the past few years, multiple cities (and the state of Oregon) have decriminalized psilocybin mushrooms for medical use, and the FDA has been supportive as well. We see the same trends with ketamine and MDMA. I expect heroin and cocaine to remain illegal, but indications are that psychedelic medicine is gaining more and more support, including from major research institutions and government agencies. Once medical use is proven safe and effective, recreational is likely not far behind.
Posted by: Curious | Dec 4, 2021 11:20:48 AM
I actually do support complete decriminalization, but then I also desire making it as cheap and easy for people to kill themselves as is reasonably possible. If particular individuals don't value their own lives I see no reason I should do so for them.
At the same time, I am all for massive penalties levied on those who do recklessly stupid things that endanger others while under the influence. And for that I don't care whether the person is high on crack or drunk on booze.
Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Dec 4, 2021 11:37:38 AM
Johah, Brenda got a clue. Please, no apostrophe for "cartel's".
READ THIS AGAIN, Sir Dunce: "If the War on Drugs never worked, more salient questions are to be asked about why we fought it. This Article posits that the War on Drugs is not about drugs, crime, or addiction: it is about us. It is about why we cede to fear, anxiety, and irrationality. It is about why we stigmatize and hurt the most vulnerable. Like other irrational and counterproductive policies, the War on Drugs is not an anomaly. It bears close resemblance to other wars we fought (and fight) against the disempowered: witches, gays, Muslims, and others."
Posted by: FluffyRoss | Dec 4, 2021 12:12:43 PM
If one wants rely on the HP poll data, the article notes:
"Just because Americans don't want these other drugs to be legal, however, doesn't mean they think current drug laws are fair. The November poll found that while few wanted to legalize drugs like heroin and cocaine, more than half said a first-time conviction for possession of those drugs should not result in jail time. Another HuffPost/YouGov poll, conducted last August, found that only a third of Americans support mandatory minimum sentences. Not surprisingly, then, a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in January last year found only 1 in 5 Americans think the benefits of the war on drugs have been worth the costs."
Not that I would necessarily. But, just to use that datum.
Years back, William Buckley Jr. came on the side of legalization in his Buckley way. Granting straight "legalization" (which is often understood to mean different than "decriminalization" and especially different from some middle ground) is an outlier, there appears to be a lot of concern there was some irrational "panic" on this question.
Not relying on any one paper, there is a lot of evidence for this judgment. Portugal is a special case, but there are broad examples of a middle ground. One example would be needle exchange programs, which over the years in this country was seen as "pro-drug" while others, including other nations, see it as a public health issue.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 4, 2021 12:48:21 PM
Curious --
"Hey Bill, I don't have polling, but I'm not sure that's the best way to measure where this debate is headed."
It certainly seemed to be the best way when the pro-defendant side is ahead rather than behind. For example, this blog has seen at least a dozen entries on the DP, noting roughly that "the death penalty is dying" and supporting that proposition mainly, and sometimes exclusively, on polling. Ditto for the claim that pot is winning or has won the legalization argument. So if polling is sauce for the pro-defendant goose.............
"In the past few years, multiple cities (and the state of Oregon) have decriminalized psilocybin mushrooms for medical use, and the FDA has been supportive as well."
But thousands more cities have not. And the FDA does not speak for the federal or any other government.
"I expect heroin and cocaine to remain illegal..."
Why? Since the main argument for legalization is that it should be up to the individual not the government to determine what he puts into his own body, why doesn't that reasoning equally apply to heroin, meth, LSD, cocaine, Ecstasy, etc.? Does the nature of the drug somehow make the individual less autonomous?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 4:05:08 PM
Joe --
"Granting straight 'legalization' (which is often understood to mean different than "decriminalization" and especially different from some middle ground) is an outlier, there appears to be a lot of concern there was some irrational "panic" on this question."
The Raich opinion presented the most sympathetic case for drug legalization, to wit, small amounts of pot for (supposedly) medical purposes. The pro-legalization side lost 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Stevens (a liberal hero) and joined by Kennedy, Souter (likewise), Ginsburg (even more so) and Breyer.
The idea that those people were driven by "irrational panic" is, ummmm..........well, it's the holiday season, so I'm trying to be polite. But I will repeat that dismissing long-deliberated opposing viewpoints as merely the product of ignorance and bigotry is nothing more than a smear.
P.S. Buckley was a smart and amusing man, which is one of the reasons I give a thousand or so each year to the William F. Buckley Program at my wife's alma mater, Yale. But smart people get stuff wrong all the time.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 4:30:41 PM
Bill, you're ascribing to me positions I don't hold. Like you, I don't see the death penalty going anywhere, at least in a few states where practice proves it alive and well. I wouldn't use polling to argue one way or the other. Actions speak louder than words, after all.
The FDA obviously does speak for the federal government. And it recently approved ketamine for use in treatment-resistant depression. It also appears on the verge of approving both magic mushrooms and MDMA (happy to provide sources, if you like).
I think heroin and cocaine will remain illegal because of their addictive potential. People tend to use psychedelics sporadically and rarely become dependent. Bodily autonomy is part of the argument for legalization, but the public is obviously concerned about other issues as well (public safety, health, etc.) We'll see in a few years who's right!
Posted by: Curious | Dec 4, 2021 4:34:39 PM
Mr. Otis
In your response to my request to comment upon Portugal's drug policy (decriminalization), you suggested that the inaction by neighboring countries is informative as to the efficacy of Portugal's policy. While their failure to adopt a similar policy as Portugal's in a "timely manner" is, in my opinion, not a persuasive argument on your part, it is also misleading in that other countries are indeed actively studying such policies, and are indeed influenced by the results of decriminalization policies adopted by Portugal.
If we were to be discussing the issue of slavery instead of drug policies, would your approach of "comparison shopping" still be your method/approach? "Oh, the U.S. made slavery illegal, but (fill in the name of other countries) has not. Ergo, due to other countries not following suit, the U.S. policy is likely not effective". This seems to be your approach in assessing Portugal's drug policy. True?
Posted by: SG | Dec 4, 2021 4:49:41 PM
SG --
Portugal legalized drugs slightly more than 20 years ago. Twenty years is not a short time. The response by its neighbors is not, as you say, "inaction." It is a decision, in the face of heated calls like yours for quite some time, to reject Portugal's path and continue prohibition in the mold of much if not all of the rest of the world. If you regard that as any sort of endorsement of legalization, feel free.
"...it is also misleading in that other countries are indeed actively studying such policies..."
The line about "actively studying" is like the line in DP debates that the killer was executed "despite many questions being raised about his trial." Yup, sure. Study away and question away.
When no nation out of the many scores on earth, from all sorts of varying cultures, legal traditions and demographics, has gone off in Portugal's lonely direction, it's highly unlikely that the problem is with the billions of other people.
As to your pitch from left field about slavery: The consensus against slavery is almost as strong as the one against drug legalization. If you think either consensus is wrong, I must decline to join you.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 6:05:23 PM
"pro-legalization side lost 6-3"
They "lost" on the federalism constitutional claim. Which these days might get more votes.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 4, 2021 6:29:47 PM
Joe --
"'pro-legalization side lost 6-3'. They 'lost' on the federalism constitutional claim. Which these days might get more votes."
Nope. If Raich were presented today, the anti-legalization side would once again get the liberals (Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) plus Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh. The pro-legalization side would get Thomas and Gorsuch. Don't know where Barrett would land.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 7:55:41 PM
Mr. Otis,
As to my analoguous reference to 'slavery' in my previous post, I believe you to be willfully avoiding the point that, in my opinion, your approach is flawed leading to seriously flawed conclusions.
While I do appreciate your comments on the subject of drug decriminalization, I am again not at all persuaded by your argument which summarily boils down to this: "183 political bodies around the world, consisting of let's say roughly 100 politicians in each country..equalling..let's call it 20,000 in total..and at least half of them plus one are against decriminalization of drugs, and so 10,001?..well..they can't ALL be wrong, can they? Can they??"
Mr. Otis, I am sure that you have met politicians in real life, and are quite familiar as to the their personalities, their priorities, and the criteria they employ when determining good public policy. You must admit that their number one criteria has always been, and will likely continue to be: "Will my vote result in the likliehood of my re-election or not?" The second consideration being "Will my donors continue to provide me with funds, or not, so I can outspend my opponent and be re-elected?". I suspect that consideration as to "What do I truly consider to be good public policy?" is likely down the list somewhere. Let's also consider those politicians whose over-all competency, mental faculties, and the like may be in question, and who may lack the capacity to even consider what is good or bad for the country. This years nominees include: Matt Gaetz, Louis Gohmert, Ron DeSantis, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Ted Cruz, and Gov. Gregg Abbott, just to name a few. And let's not forget the former President - he whose name must never be uttered again. I suspect that you must have a slew of nominees from the other side of the aisle, no doubt (some of which I may actually agree with you). So much for politicians. Res ipsa loquitur.
So is this truly the best method when considering "good and effective public policy"??
As a result of 'heated calls' AGAINST criminal justice reform, the adoption of actual effective public policy in this area has been glacially incremental and begrudgingly implemented, and only in reaction to loud, and often violent, protestations by the lower classes. How long did it take to get police departments to finally put body cameras on their officers (and still many agencies refuse to do this, claiming budget constraints while paying out millions in civil judgments)? The point being, good and effective public policy in this area is slow in making and hard to come by.
If you believe that heavy-handed retributions and increased punishments are effective methodologies in controlling or reducing drug addiction, as well as other addictions (sex, gambling, pornography) I strongly disagree, and I cannot join you. These methods have have proven to be abject failures, as reflected in all studies. After decades of "The War on Drugs" and your punishment-based approach, the recidivism rates of those committing crimes in which drugs were involved have, year after year, remained the highest.
I believe that this overall approach is reflective of a lack of knowledge and understanding as to the nature of addictions and its root causes. This is where science, fact based evidence and empirical studies must enter into the equation, and not philosophical, political and emotional considerations.
Thanks for considering my comments. I look forward to your reply.
Posted by: SG | Dec 4, 2021 9:04:12 PM
SG --
-- If you dislike foreign politicians and some (highly selected) domestic ones, OK, fine. But here are some inconvenient facts: For the first two years of Obama's tenure, the Democrats had full control of both the political branches of the federal government. Did they decriminalize drugs?
For about a year now, Biden and his party have also had majorities in both houses. Have they decriminalized drugs? Is there any remotely realistic chance they will do so?
No and no. And it's not because they're cowards or dopes. It's because they understand that removing barriers to hard drugs means more consumption of hard drugs, and more consumption of hard drugs means more death, see, e.g., this AMA paper released three weeks ago: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/issue-brief-increases-in-opioid-related-overdose.pdf
It's all well and good to type on the Internet about how compelling one's position is. But if doesn't resonate with the public, and still less with the medical profession, it's just so much breast-beating.
Over many decades, and now, legalization of hard drugs has been a loser for the simple reason that the great majority of the world, and of people in this country, Ds, Rs and Independents, understand that hard drugs are somewhere between unhealthy and lethal and want less of them not more. I notice that not a single legalizer on this thread has taken me up on my suggestion that, if drugs are so wholesome, go start your kid on them. There's a reason for their reticence.
-- "After decades of "The War on Drugs" and your punishment-based approach, the recidivism rates of those committing crimes in which drugs were involved have, year after year, remained the highest."
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? I know that's the drumbeat of the criminal defense bar and other enthusiasts for The Wonders of Smack, et al, but count me out. The responsibility for repeated criminal behavior, whether involving drugs or what have you, lies with the individuals who undertake that behavior. Human beings are not mere passive vessels moved about by social forces. They make choices, and are responsible for them.
-- In trying to reduce crime, we already know what works and we know what fails. What fails is the soft approach we had in the Sixties, Seventies and much of the Eighties, when crime exploded. What works is the more sober approach (more police, more proactive policing, more incarceration) we had for a little more than 20 years starting in the early Nineties (for which Clinton deserves his share of credit). During that period, crime fell by close to half; the murder rate fell by more than half. These crime trends, documented now for more than 50 years, have zip to do with, as you put it, "philosophical, political and emotional considerations." They're just numbers.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 4, 2021 11:25:13 PM
Mr. Spin, they still lost on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.
(You are spinning. So, I'll call you on it.)
As a matter of policy, medicinal marijuana has become more popular, and as noted on this blog, federal prosecution policy formulated not to go after it. The "loss" was long term limited at best.
I won't bet my non-existent farm on the votes, especially given conservatives are not consistent (as seen by Scalia and Kennedy) when it comes to drugs, but "might" is all I said anyway.
These days, I can see someone like Sotomayor voting on the side of medical marijuana somehow. How the six conservatives will break down is unclear. More than three votes is quite possible, especially if the case is crafted carefully.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 5, 2021 11:50:59 AM
You lost on constitutional grounds, but, ya see, you really won.
The world rejects uniform drug legalization 180-something to 1, but ya see, everybody else is wrong.
Crime goes down massively when we adopt get tough policies about 30 years ago, but, ya see, get tough policies really increase crime.
Tell me again who's spinning.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Dec 5, 2021 2:49:10 PM
Why does the writer of this paper mention the word "marginalized" over and over and over and over and over and over???? Hey. It isn't just the "marginalized" whatever that even means who suffered and suffers still in the obviously-lost War on Drugs.
Those who write these papers stain their work with their nonsense about the "marginalized." It makes us all want to scream. Shut up about the non-existent "marginalized!!!"
Deal with the failed War on Drugs. Period.
Posted by: restless94110 | Dec 5, 2021 2:58:19 PM
29 countries around the world have some type of 'decriminalization' policy in respect to drugs. Not just Portugal.
Here is the link for you:
https://www.talkingdrugs.org/decriminalisation
I know in the future you will include this valid and accurate information in your arguments.
In your latest reply to me, you stated that "removing barriers to hard drugs means more consumption of hard drugs, and more consumption of hard drugs means more death". Well, duh, yeah. Of course removing barriers to ILLEGAL hard drugs will result in an increase in consumption and deaths. That's not what I had ever proposed or stated as my position. Nor has it ever been the policy of Portugal over the past 20 years.
I provide you with another link below about drug policies in the 29 countries. (By the way, I checkd out the link and info you had provided to me. Thank you very much). I am pray you will take the time to read this much-needed information, so that you may become better informed and educated (which as an educator, I assume you are anxious to do).
https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight
You should also know that I fully endorse strong criminal penalties for the "supply side" criminals (cartel and international conspirators- importers-manufacturers of large-quantity/wholesale sales of illegal drugs, as well as all ancillary crimes such as money laundering, precursor drug activity, etc.).
I do not endorse, as you apparently do, stiff criminal penalties for the average "demand side" criminals such as street addicts, and those who engage in small-time sales, transportation, mfg. of smaller quantities [perhaps less than pound quantities]), etc. I do endorse and seek deterrence and rehabilitation.
Decriminalization policies of the 29 countries referenced above typically include access to 'legal and safe injection sites', needle exchanges, harm reduction printed information, AIDS and Hep C treatment and prevention, resources for drug counseling, treatment, rehabilitiation, etc. This is not only a position that I fully endorse, but one in which I am personally involved (as is my son who manages a California county needle exchange offering these support systems). As an ex-addict myself (clean now 52 years), and a former drug counselor working with former hard-core addicts, ex-prisoners, and the like, I strive to stay fully informed on these issues.
While I understand that your focus is not so much on treatment, prevention, and the root causes of addictions, I am trying my damndest to let you know that you are NOT HELPING. Reducing crime by 'locking them all up' for longer periods is not the answer. While increased punishment may put a band-aid on the problem, and temporarily reduce bleeding (metaphorically, Bill..don't get distracted), the injury does not heal. When you only treat the symptoms the problem shall remain. And your solution fails.
You can ask the average man on the street whether your solution is what they want. (Try it in a low rent district where the majority of the 'average men' live - not the gated communities).
I have not followed your every word, but I have yet to hear (or read) your voice promoting such efforts. As your voice is listened to far more than mine, I'm wondering why not? And if you ARE in support (and I hope that you are), it is glaringly obvious that you do not prioritize these efforts, and instead prioritize and work to achieve harsher punishments and retribution.
And PLEASE don't give me the "well, there's rehabilitation in prison if they want it". That is an absolute fallacy and we all know it. Rehabilitation in prison is a joke of the worst kind. I've been there, I've seen it, and I know it.
And efforts to rehabilitate addicts in prisons is like restraunt owners promoting fasting. No clients, and whoops, you're out of business (again metaphorically, Bill).
As to your argument as to "the people want less crime and do not support decriminalization". This may be so, but only because all those involved in the Crim. Justice System (other than the defense bar) have a vested interest in increasing their customer base, so as to keep the $$ flowing, maintain job security, and retire with govt. pensions. You know very well how the system works.
I have enjoyed our exchanges Bill, and once again look forward to your response.
Posted by: SG | Dec 6, 2021 5:31:04 AM
The above comment was directed to Bill Otis.
Posted by: SG | Dec 6, 2021 5:31:54 AM
