« "140 Characters of Justice? The Promise and Perils of Using Social Media to Reveal Lay Punishment Perspectives" | Main | "Exploring the Impact of Remorse on Recommendations for Sentencing Diversion for Defendants With Psychiatric Diagnoses" »
August 14, 2023
Interesting new resource sorting through complicated realities of "drug decriminalization"
I just came across this notable report titled "Decriminalizing Drug Possession In The US: Emerging Models & Recommendations For Policy Design And Implementation." This document, which was produced by multiple public health scholars and was funded by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, seeks to unpack and assess different approaches to drug decriminalization. Here is its executive summary:
Amid calls to address substance use as a public health issue, jurisdictions nationwide are rethinking the paradigm of criminalization for possession of drugs other than cannabis. While decriminalization of all drugs through official legislation (de jure) has only been enacted in Oregon, many localities are leveraging prosecutorial discretion to de facto decriminalize simple drug possession. However, the different policy provisions and implementation experiences of de facto strategies have not yet been systematically captured. Through key informant interviews (N=22), we describe and contrast emerging models of de facto drug decriminalization (specifically, the use of prosecutorial discretion to depenalize and/or decriminalize the possession of drugs other than cannabis) in 14 jurisdictions nationally.
Systematic thematic analysis revealed four distinct implementation models of de facto drug decriminalization: expanded diversion, substance-specific declination, case-by-case declination, and unconditional declination. Challenges and opportunities for implementation of de facto decriminalization included data availability and quality, addressing past and non-drug charges, and stakeholder and public engagement. Key recommendations include tailoring policies to the local context, seeking multisectoral collaboration early in implementation, establishing research and evaluation partnerships, and explicitly adopting measures to improve outcomes for racial/ethnic minority and low-income communities disproportionately affected by drug enforcement. The use of these strategies can help reduce exposure to and disparities in the carceral system, even in the absence of formal legislation.
UPDATE: Intriguingly, less than an hour after putting up this post, I saw an intriguing new headline and story on Fox News, "Vivek Ramaswamy breaks with GOP on decriminalization of hard drugs: 'I'm in that direction'."
August 14, 2023 at 05:08 PM | Permalink
Comments
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/oregonians-turning-against-mistake-drug-decriminalization-amid-record-ods-dystopian-nightmare/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=article
P.S. How many hard drugs does Pres. Biden say he wants to decriminalize?
P.P.S. How many of the tens of thousands of people who have died from fentanyl overdoses does drugs-are-cool lobby plan to resurrect?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 15, 2023 3:14:58 PM
Mr. Otis: Users die of drug overdoses almost entirely because illegal drugs are generally of unknown composition and concentration. Similarly,during alcohol prohibition lots of people died due to contaminated booze. Legalize and regulate drugs, and opioid overdose deaths will instantly become as rare as alcohol overdose deaths are today.
Legalization will put the Walter Whites out of business, and will end the plague of suicides among chronic pain patients whose doctors were threatened with arrest if they didn't stop prescribing effective painkillers.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Aug 15, 2023 8:56:21 PM
Keith Lynch --
"Users die of drug overdoses almost entirely because illegal drugs are generally of unknown composition and concentration."
And who sells them these adulterated and poisoned drugs? Do you think the sellers have any moral blame? Do you think they might just get a normal job like everyone else has to? Or are they above that?
And you might be aware that the drug penalties in Asia, Africa and the Middle East are harsher and often much harsher than those in the USA. Do you think the people in those places are intellectually and/or morally inferior to predominantly Caucasian Americans?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 15, 2023 11:48:30 PM
Mr. Otis: I don't deny that drug pushers are bad people deserving of harsh punishments (when cops and prosecutors manage to catch them, instead of seizing assets of, convicting, or simply shooting, the innocent). But I believe that it's far more important to reduce the total harm. Legalizing drugs would greatly reduce overdose deaths and wrongful convictions, and would put the pushers out of business.
If you prefer the present arrangement, perhaps you should lobby to make tobacco illegal. That would result in cigarettes becoming even deadlier, and in a whole new batch of criminals you can lock up for pushing tobacco. And in a whole new batch of completely innocent people whose assets you can seize without evidence as suspected tobacco money.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Aug 16, 2023 8:02:58 AM
Keith Lynch --
The idea of drug legalization has been around for decades. One country, Portugal, has adopted it. The other approximately 192 have rejected it after having many years to examine Portugal's experience. I think it unlikely that Portugal knows more than the rest of humanity.
And since you didn't answer, I'll ask again: You might be aware that the drug penalties in Asia, Africa and the Middle East are harsher and often much harsher than those in the USA. Do you think the people in those places are intellectually and/or morally inferior to predominantly Caucasian Americans?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 16, 2023 10:21:46 AM
Keith Lynch,
Marijuana disproves your claim rather conclusively.
It is legal in many states and it is creating a ton of problems. Even though you can find legal dispensaries, people still buy off the street and die because of cheaper, adulterated drugs that give you a better high. Not to mention, it is like going to the mall compared to Amazon. It’s sold in these homeless and street drug areas rather than having to leave the neighborhood.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Aug 16, 2023 12:26:18 PM
TarlsQtr --
Exactly. And there's this too: Legalizers simply walk past the nature of addiction. Your body becomes accustomed to whatever amount you're taking and demands more to get high. And then more and then more. Eventually your addiction drives you to seek potency levels no state is going to legalize. So we're right back to where we started, except with legions more drug users now at near overdose levels.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 16, 2023 1:41:58 PM
Drug legalization isn't utopia. But it's better than what we have now. Or do you think tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal? Tobacco is the most addictive drug of all (according to those who have quit hard narcotics but still use tobacco, who are far more numerous than those who have done the opposite), and also by far the deadliest, killing nearly half a million Americans every year.
Also, America is, or ought to be, a free country. That means people have the right to do stupid, dangerous, and destructive things. Or do you think that skydiving, motorcycling, deep sea diving, and mountain climbing should be outlawed?
As for people requiring higher and higher doses, that's true of nearly all drugs, including blood pressure medicine. And it's always self-limiting. (Some alcoholics "require" blood levels of 0.5%, which would be lethal for most of us. But none ever reach 1%, which would be lethal for everyone.) And can be dealt with by higher quantities, not just by higher concentrations.
Opioids, even fentanyl, unlike alcohol and tobacco, are safe at therapeutic doses. (Of course driving while under the influence should remain illegal.) The most serious side effect is constipation. The reason why so many users die is because the concentration is much higher than expected, or because the drug is contaminated with other things, such as viruses or that chemical that causes instant Parkinson's disease.
And many opioid users use not because they're addicted, but because they suffer from severe chronic pain. Pain which the government doesn't allow doctors to effectively treat.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Aug 17, 2023 7:45:09 AM
Keith Lynch --
Since you continue to ignore the questions I ask, I see no reason I should answer yours. Apparently you think this is a one-way street in which only convicted felons get to ask questions. It isn't.
Still, I'll repeat what you're avoiding.
The idea of drug legalization, and the arguments you advance for it, including the arguments about smoking, drinking, skydiving, etc., have been around for decades. One country, Portugal, has adopted them and has legalized drugs. The other approximately 192 have rejected legalization after having many years to examine Portugal's experience. Do you think Portugal (and you) know more than the rest of humanity?
Drug penalties in Asia, Africa and the Middle East are harsher and often much harsher, than those in the USA. Do you think the people in those places are intellectually and/or morally inferior to predominantly Caucasian Americans?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 17, 2023 8:30:14 AM
Mr. Otis: Sorry, I didn't think you were seriously asking me that question. No, of course I don't think that some races are intellectually or morally inferior to others. And I don't see what that has to do with the topic anyway.
I do, however, think that some *governments* are inferior to others. Those which give extremely harsh sentences for minor crimes or for non-crimes are worse than those that don't. I'm glad I live in a country in which I can criticize that country's government. And in which I can't be put to death if I'm accused of tearing pages out of a religious book.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Aug 18, 2023 1:29:59 AM
Keith Lynch --
Do you think Portugal (and you) know more about the pros and cons of drug legalization than the rest of humanity? Because you're being outscored 192 - 1, with very many in the 192 having harsher drug penalties than the United States.
There's probably some word stronger than "hubris" for thinking you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, but my vocabulary isn't that big.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 18, 2023 10:12:56 AM
Mr. Otis: You're comparing an individual (me) against nations. Does that sort of reasoning convince jurors? Compare an individual against other individuals. Everyone who has used illegal drugs can presumably be regarded as favoring drug legalization. And that's more than half the adult US population. Plus millions of pro-legalization non-users like me.
It's "hubris" to disagree with the majority? (Assuming it even is the majority, which in this case it is not.) If everyone thought that way there never would have been any progress. We'd still be living in caves. Certainly there would be no United States of America, as it was founded on ideas that were, over most the world, very unpopular.
For instance the idea that you obviously disagree with: That the purpose of government is to protect people against other people, foreign and domestic. Since you favor keeping drugs illegal, you think government's job is also to protect individuals against themselves.
True hubris isn't disagreeing with the majority, it's thinking you know better than everyone else what's best for them. Even if someone is in constant chronic pain, you know better than them, and better than their doctor, what medications, if any, they should be using, even though you have no medical degree. Not just hubris but overwhelming arrogance.
As for your once again disparaging me by calling me a felon, that's like a schoolyard bully randomly shoving someone into a mud puddle then mocking them for being dirty.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Aug 18, 2023 10:54:57 PM
Keith Lynch --
"Mr. Otis: You're comparing an individual (me) against nations. Does that sort of reasoning convince jurors?"
Actually I'm comparing your BELIEF about drug legalization to the contrary BELIEF of millions (or billions) of others, but good try. Still, if a point be made of it, you'd have no clue what convinces jurors, since you were too scared to face a jury and instead stuck your tail between your legs and pleaded guilty.
"Everyone who has used illegal drugs can presumably be regarded as favoring drug legalization."
Quit presuming and start researching facts. Here they are: Except for pot, Americans overwhelmingly oppose drug legalization. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/drug-legalization-poll_n_5162357 Oh, let me guess, the Huffington Post is a right-wing plot. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Yes, I favor keeping hard drugs illegal as does the overwhelming majority of the American people, plus Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc., etc. But you know better, given your High Attainments in life. However, now that you mention it, sometimes it is the government's job to protect vulnerable people from dangerous falsehoods, such as that drugs will "expand your consciousness" when what they'll actually do is harm you or, sometimes, kill you. There were over 100,000 overdose deaths in each of the last two years. Did you know that? Do you care? Some people do.
"Even if someone is in constant chronic pain, you know better than them [sic], and better than their doctor, what medications, if any, they should be using, even though you have no medical degree. Not just hubris but overwhelming arrogance."
I occasionally get pain medication, including controlled substances, legally prescribed by a licensed doctor. There's nothing special about this; millions and millions of people get legally prescribed pain medication. But unlike you, I'm against pill mill doctors who, for a nice profit, happily lead their patients into drug dependency and addiction. You're so obsessed with blaming the authorities -- cops, prosecutors, legislators -- that you're just blind to criminality and the tremendous damage it causes. Oh, and where did you get your medical degree? Or any degree, while we're at it. Timothy Leary U.?
"As for your once again disparaging me by calling me a felon..."
Good God you are dim. You called YOURSELF a felon, and indeed have gone on and on and on about your felony conviction (courtesy of your own counseled guilty plea). You did enter a counseled guilty plea to a felony, didn't you? Yet I'M to blame for saying you're a felon? When YOU said it, and said it to a judge???
"...that's like a schoolyard bully randomly shoving someone into a mud puddle then mocking them for being dirty."
You're a grown man and it's time to stop playing victim. I had nothing to do with you or your case and didn't know it even existed until you started constantly yammering about it on this blog. Your incessant whining about how YOU WUZ ROBBED makes Donald Trump seem like a class act.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 19, 2023 1:24:57 PM
> Actually I'm comparing your BELIEF about drug legalization to the
> contrary BELIEF of millions (or billions) of others, but good try.
When claimed beliefs differ from behaviors, I go with the latter.
Don't you? More than half the adult US population has used illegal
drugs. They obviously believe those drugs should be legal, whatever
they may claim in a poll. Just as 99.9% of cigarette smokers believe
cigarettes should remain legal, and 99.9% of drinkers believe alcohol
should remain legal, and 99.9% of meat eaters believe that veganism
should not be imposed by law.
> Still, if a point be made of it, you'd have no clue what convinces
> jurors, since you were too scared to face a jury and instead stuck
> your tail between your legs and pleaded guilty.
As I've explained several times:
* I stupidly trusted my court-appointed lawyer. I will never make
that mistake again.
* I wasn't certain that I was innocent, as the cops had angrily
insisted that they had overwhelming proof of my guilt. They had me
half-convinced that I was criminally insane for not remembering the
crime. Especially since my lawyer didn't say anything about finding
evidence that could be used to exonerate me. (Eventually I learned
that neither the police nor that lawyer investigated at all.)
* That lawyer said he would resign if I were to insist on a trial, and
I'd be on my own. I knew that I knew nothing about defending myself
in court. And since I was in jail, I couldn't investigate my case
or read law books.
> Oh, let me guess, the Huffington Post is a right-wing plot.
> Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I never mentioned the Huffington Post.
> However, now that you mention it, sometimes it is the government's
> job to protect vulnerable people from dangerous falsehoods, such
> as that drugs will "expand your consciousness" when what they'll
> actually do is harm you or, sometimes, kill you.
I favor the government educating people, so they can make informed
decisions. For instance the mandated warning labels on cigarette
packages.
Unfortunately, the government has lied so much on so many subject that
it has little credibility left. That's why millions of Americans
falsely believe that covid vaccines are deadlier than covid. My own
landlord/housemate has refused to get vaccinated for that reason.
> There were over 100,000 overdose deaths in each of the last two
> years. Did you know that? Do you care? Some people do.
Of course I know that. In this thread I explained that that's
almost entirely because of wildly varying concentrations, and that
legalizing, labeling, and regulating drugs would prevent nearly all
accidental overdose deaths. Do *you* care? Apparently not, since
you favor continuing the anti-freedom policies that resulted in the
present overdose death rates.
And again I ask you whether you favor making cigarettes illegal. They
kill enormously more Americans than all illegal drugs put together.
And those are not overdose deaths. Unlike nearly all other drugs,
tobacco kills about half of all users when used in moderation and
as intended.
> "Even if someone is in constant chronic pain, you know better than
> them [sic], and better than their doctor, what medications, if any,
> they should be using, even though you have no medical degree. Not
> just hubris but overwhelming arrogance."
Using "them" for someone of unspecified sex is perfectly valid English.
> I occasionally get pain medication, including controlled substances,
> legally prescribed by a licensed doctor. There's nothing special
> about this; millions and millions of people get legally prescribed
> pain medication.
Millions of Americans, especially those who are young, poor,
non-white, or in severe chronic pain, are less able to convince
their doctor that they're in pain.
> But unlike you, I'm against pill mill doctors who, for a nice
> profit, happily lead their patients into drug dependency and
> addiction.
I'm against patients having to work to convince their doctors that
their complaints are valid. I think that someone in severe pain not
getting treated is a far greater evil than the risk that someone will
falsely claim to be in pain because they want to get high.
Would you also suggest that cardiologists should be skeptical when someone claims to be experiencing chest pain? Maybe they just want to get admitted to a hospital. And if 100,000 additional people die of a heart attack because their cardiologist was intimidated into being skeptical, that's a small price to pay, right?
I'm against doctors being intimidated out of prescribing what they
believe their patients need because they're in fear that the DEA will
prosecute them, costing them millions in legal fees and destroying
their reputation, their career, and their life.
> You're so obsessed with blaming the authorities -- cops,
> prosecutors, legislators -- that you're just blind to criminality
> and the tremendous damage it causes.
I am probably more aware of it, and more repelled by it, than you are.
You're blind to how much of that criminality exists *among* the
authorities.
> Oh, and where did you get your medical degree?
I don't need a medical degree to suggest that patients and doctors
working together should decide what treatments patients get, and that
cops, prosecutors, legislators, and others without medical degrees
should not. Note that I've never suggested that any specific person
should receive any specific treatment.
> Or any degree, while we're at it. Timothy Leary U.?
I met Timothy Leary. He was a very flawed human being, but a far
better man than you.
> "As for your once again disparaging me by calling me a felon..."
> Good God you are dim. You called YOURSELF a felon,
Not to disparage myself. You used the term, in this thread, to imply
that I'm not worth listening to.
> and indeed have gone on and on and on about your felony conviction
> (courtesy of your own counseled guilty plea).
You were the one who asked me details about my case. I provided them.
You later asked me the same questions again, more than once, to which
I responded "Objection: Asked and answered," and gave the URL.
> You did enter a counseled guilty plea to a felony, didn't you?
Objection: Asked and answered.
> Yet I'M to blame for saying you're a felon?
When you say it to imply that I have nothing of value to say, yes.
> "...that's like a schoolyard bully randomly shoving someone into a
> mud puddle then mocking them for being dirty."
> You're a grown man and it's time to stop playing victim.
It's time for the Commonwealth of Virginia to stop victimizing me.
My legal status isn't something that happened 46 years ago. It's
something that *started* 46 years ago, and continues. Someone who
has had a perfectly clean record for nearly half a century is not
a criminal, even if, unlike me, they had been one earlier.
> I had nothing to do with you or your case and didn't know it
> even existed until you started constantly yammering about it
> on this blog.
As I've explained before, not you personally, but the criminal gang
you have made yourself a part of, prosecutors. When a person joins an
organization, and remains in it even after learning its true nature,
they share collective responsibility for its actions.
> Your incessant whining about how YOU WUZ ROBBED makes Donald Trump
> seem like a class act.
Trump reminds me a lot of you, what with his claims that his opponents
are criminals, or crazy, or stupid, because they oppose him, and that
he's a good guy because he held an important office, and was in authority.
Posted by: Keith Lynch | Aug 20, 2023 1:23:41 PM
