Drugs, Law and Society Reading Responses

QUESTION 1 Would legalizing the growth and consumption of traditional substances such as coca and khat reduce or increase drug-related harm? As Andrew Weil argues, it is an innate part of the human condition to seek ways to alter human consciousness. One of the most common methods of doing this, argues Weil, is the use of drugs because it requires minimal effort. Since it is an innate part of the human condition, and since humans are always finding ways to do things with the least amount of effort possible, the quest for drugs, legal and illegal, will never cease. Drug-related harm is any kind of mental, physical, or societal harm that is inflicted on a person as a direct result of taking a drug or through conflicts regarding drugs. The growth and consumption of traditional substances, such as coca and khat would decrease drug-related harm because neither produce harmful physical and mental addiction, and they would lessen the traffic (specifically for cocaine) on the black market thus decreasing drug violence. In The New Politics of Coca, Andrew Weil describes his observations of coca-using populations. Coca is plant leaf that contains trace amounts of cocaine, primarily grown in South America, most commonly Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia. When Europeans first encountered the substance being used by populations in South America, they regarded the peoples chewing the sacred plant as beastly, even though coca chewing is highly regulated by a set of norms in South American populations. Regardless of the fact that coca is of high spiritual value to South Americans, the United Nations declared the production, distribution, and use of coca as illegal because of its association with the illicit drug, cocaine (Weil 1995). In his anthropological work, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, Gabor Mat distinguishes cocaine as an especially dangerous drug because of it works on the incentive system of the brain, or the levels of dopamine, when taken giving the user a strong high in pursuit of cocaine in addition to during its use, contributing to serious addiction. In Weils observations, since coca contains such a small amount of cocaine, he saw no physical or mental problems associated with [cocas] use[and] coca improved [the Cubeos] health and gave them longer lives (Weil 1995). Additionally, Professor Beckett states that coca contains many other chemicals that change the effect of the cocaine. Allowing coca to be legal would not harm the health of these populations, for they have been using the plant for centuries without any of the harmful effects of cocaine. Growth of coca products also has the potential to encourage the use around the world of milder cocaine products like coca tea rather than very potent, and very addictive, powder cocaine. Legalizing coca

would also alleviate some of the drug-related harm from the dangerous and violent production and distribution of cocaine from the coca leaf on the black market. Khat is a similar drug to coca in that it is used primarily as a social and cultural drug, containing small amounts of amphetamines. Khat is found mostly in Ethiopia and parts of the Middle East. When Ethiopia was experiencing political turmoil, many citizens immigrated to Europe and the United States. With them, they brought khat. Ezekiel Gebissa, in Khat: Is It More Like Coffee or Cocaine? Criminalizing a Commodity, Targeting a Community, describes khat chew sessions for khat users away from their homeland as provid[ing] a familiar setting for seeking connectedness, conversation, and cooperation. Also similar to coca is that khat does not contribute to drug-related harmful health effects like illicit drugs, due to the fact that khat has such low potency (Gebissa 2012). In contrast to coca, khats chemicals cannot be isolated and processed to create highly concentrated substances like cocaine or methamphetamine (Gebissa 2012). Therefore, legalizing khat would not have any effect on the violent and dangerous production and distribution of highly potent illicit drugs that are the real cause for concern. In addition to decreasing mental and physical harm as well as drug-related harm experienced through the black market, legalizing substances, such as both coca and khat, that hold religious and traditional value to certain cultures would decrease harm to societies because the traditional users would be allowed to continue to use drugs specific to their cultural and spiritual practices. Especially for Ethiopians in America, criminalizing khat undermines their attempts to hold on to their cultural roots while living in a foreign society. Subjugating cultural customs with outside rule is ignorant and demeans the culture in question having a detrimental effect on the mental state of members of that culture. Outsiders have no right to prohibit the use of something so sacred to another culture, so long as that substance poses no serious health threat and does not infringe on the rights of others as I have argued that neither coca nor khat does. Legalizing the growth and consumption of traditional substances such as coca and khat would reduce drug-related harm through encouragement of the use of less potent substances, decreased incidence of black market violence, and through allowing societies to continue their long standing traditions.

QUESTION 2 How have race, class, and or gender influenced the use and or abuse of a particular consciousness altering substance? Two sources of pain plague the human experience: a traumatic past, and lack of purpose. According to the social theory of drug use discussed by Prof. Beckett, people in poverty lack both resources and incentives to keep them from abusing drugs. The lack of resources to seek help for past trauma and incentives to lead a meaningful life absent of drugs available to the lowest socioeconomic class motivates them to use heroin an opium-derived substance that masks psychological pain and which the pursuit of, provides a meaningful life. Traumatic events during childhood contribute to psychological issues in adulthood. In the chapter, Heroin and the Narcotics, a young woman explains her motivation for using heroin. Her home life was stressful and she had friendship problems. She began using marijuana, eventually using heroin for six years to cope with her pain. Suddenly, through spontaneous recovery, she decided, it wasnt the kind of life [she] wanted to live (309). Having an educated, middle class background, she had resources ways of escaping her pain other than using heroin. Celia, a woman described by Gabor Mat in, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, was also motivated to use heroin because of past trauma. After being sexually abused as a child by her stepfather, Celia began using heroin to cope with her pain, in search of that coma state, where [she doesnt] feel anything (Mat 64). The difference between the middle-class woman and Celia lies in the fact that Celia lives in poverty in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, Canada. Celia does not have the resources to escape the tight grasp that heroin has on her life and seek help for the pain that she experienced as a child. So while the young woman is able to renounce heroin for sustainable ways to cope with her pain, Celia remains entrenched in her heroin habit. Lack of purpose is another source of pain. Heroin usage was common in soldiers fighting overseas during the Vietnam War. According to Mat, about half of all the soldiers used heroin regularly. However, once the war had ended and the soldiers returned home, almost none remained addicted to heroin. Mat concluded that since the Vietnam War quickly became pointless, lack of meaning, not simply the dangers and privations of war, was the major source of the stress that triggered their flight to oblivion (Mat 146). The soldiers lives were devoid of meaning when they were overseas; their battles had no purpose. They sought out heroin to mask that pain of meaninglessness, but in the end, those soldiers could return home and still had other ways of living purposeful lives incentives to not use heroin. The story is different for heroin users in the slums. In Taking Care of Business The Heroin Addicts Life on the Street, Edward Preble and John J. Casey describe the progression of the heroin

market in New York City in the mid 1900s. Heroin went from being a social drug to a drug used in isolation due to a competitive drug market. For people living in poverty then and today, there are few career choices and not much prospect for advancement. Heroin, however, is a reliable career substitute it is a competitive dealing and buying market, forcing the user to structure their lives around the pursuit of it, and it is illegal, providing the user with passion and thrill (Preble 117). Unlike the middle and upper class that have career options, and people like the soldiers in Vietnam who only temporarily experienced purposelessness, impoverished individuals living in city slums see heroin as the only way to live purposeful lives. All people experience pain. But these two kinds of pain psychological trauma and lack of purpose are most detrimental for people of low socioeconomic status because they have limited resources and incentives. Consequentially, many turn to heroin for that mind numbing, pain free coma, and that structure and meaning that heroin provides. In, How to Make Money Selling Drugs, a satirical documentary exposing the corruption behind the failed war on drugs, the anti-drug slogan, Just Say No, is criticized because what do people in poverty have that they can say yes to? If any headway in curbing heroin use is to be made, people of low socioeconomic status must be presented with options: (1) there must be widely available, free (or heavily subsidized) mental health services and group counseling sessions for individuals that have experienced psychological trauma, and (2) there must be easily accessible vocational and professional training programs, where people in poverty can begin the process of finding a career and creating meaning in their lives. Only then will heroin and other opiates become an after-thought for those seeking to cope with their pain.

QUESTION 3 Which theoretical perspective (or combination of perspectives) on drug use and abuse best explains spontaneous recovery and why? A drug addict has the potential to spontaneously recover they can realize without outside influence that their habits must change. Some are more likely to do this than others, due to differences in each individuals unique set and setting their own person in conjunction with the socioeconomic context in which they live. Spontaneous recovery is most likely to occur in people of higher socioeconomic status because they have a stake in conventional life. The sociological theory rather than the medical models or the classical theory best describes spontaneous recovery, because it relies heavily on this set and setting to explain addiction. The medical models of drug use promote the theory of addiction as disease predicted by genetics; the pharmacological model argues that the chemical composition of a drug predicts its addictiveness (which is refuted by Prof. Becketts Drunken Comportment example that concluded different societies respond differently to the same exact substances). The medical models cannot explain spontaneous recovery. Chronic disease triggered by an addictive substance does not go away on its own, it requires treatment. The classical theory of drug use views drug use as the free choice of hedonistic individuals. When an individual chooses to use drugs, it is because they have decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. A rational person would therefore decide that the costs of their addiction outweigh the short-term benefits of drugs, lending that person to spontaneous recovery. But what happens when the pros of abstaining from drug use are nonexistent? Spontaneous recovery is not in the cards. In Hilary Surratts Sex Work and Drug Use in a Subculture of Violence, this is the case for the women that prostitute their bodies for drug money because what benefits do they seek to gain by halting their drug use? Certainly they have none that outweigh the benefits of using drugs. This is where the sociological theory of use and abuse comes into play. The sociological theory takes a comprehensive look at both the set and setting of an individual in order to explain their drug use. An individuals stake in conventional life their set and setting is what determines if the person will move along the drug use continuum described by Prof. Beckett from the social/recreational user to involved user and abuser. Two factors help people spontaneously recover: resources and incentives. In Reinarman and Levines, Two Women Who Used Cocaine Too Much, Becky and Monique both use drugs, but their environments are different. Becky has a supportive family, whereas Monique has emotionally removed parents and an unstable home life. Supportive family is a resource, which in general terms, is more common in families of higher socioeconomic status. This

resource provides users with a stake in conventional life, which can serve to pull them out of addiction or stop them from moving along the continuum in the first place. Another stake in conventional life comes in the form of incentives. In The Elephant That No One Sees, Granfield and Cloud discuss middle-class addicts that do not conform to the usual stereotype associated with drug use. One of the reasons this population is able to remain hidden is because they are often able to terminate their addictive use of substances without treatment (411) they are able to spontaneously recover. Spontaneous recovery exists among this population because they have incentives to not fall into addiction. They have something to lose, be it their middle-class jobs, their homes, etc. The same phenomenon is seen in Ethnographic Notes on Ecstasy Use Among Professionals, where middle-aged, professional ecstasy users are able to hold off addiction because of the incentives to keep hold of their conventional life. Because of the emphasis on the social determinants of drug use resources and incentives the sociological theory of addiction best describes spontaneous recovery. With this evidence of spontaneous recovery occurring in individuals with resources and incentives comes policy implications. Rather than treating addiction as a disease, or addicts as criminals, policy should focus on providing the most desperate members of the community opportunity for a stake in conventional life. Widespread availability of resources financial, educational, and mental health related as well as incentives more jobs and opportunities for advancement in low-grade employment would facilitate the process of spontaneous recovery, and keep people from falling into addictive habits in the first place.

QUESTION 4 How does social context influence the level of violence associated with drug market activity? In Goldsteins analysis of the relationship between crack and violence, Crack and Homicide in New York City, he discusses three types of violence associated with drug market activity: (1) psycho-pharmacological violence, (2) economic compulsive violence, and (3) systemic violence. The social context of drug markets in impoverished populations contribute to high levels of violence because of a combination of Goldsteins systemic violence and economic compulsive violence relating to drug market activity. That tendency for violence is then compounded by unintended consequences of the lack of regulations for illicit substances. Systemic violence is violent crimes, such as homicides, that are born from the unregulated nature of the drug market. In New York in late 1900s, the social situation of a subset of the population was bleak. Enveloped in poverty, there was a lack of economic opportunities. When crack cocaine was introduced, it was seen as a lucrative business, and many people jumped on board many motivated by the lack of other opportunities presented to them elsewhere. Resulting from that phenomenon, coupled with the unregulated nature of the business, territory disputes became rampant. Crack was a new drug; therefore there were no existing territories in place for all these new dealers trying to make it in the drug scene. Goldstein found that territorial disputes (systemic violence) were a factor in 44% of crack-related homicides at that time (120). Economic unrest lured already disadvantaged people to the crack business at the same time that the unregulated nature facilitated the widespread systemic violence surrounding the crack market. The social context of poverty also compels people to commit acts of violence in order to obtain money for a drug, or the drug itself playing into Goldsteins description of economic compulsive violence. This concept of the incentives to commit violent crimes in order to obtain drugs is illustrated well in Vince Gilligans television series, Breaking Bad, where a high school chemistry teacher, Walter White, is driven to cooking methamphetamine in order to pay for his cancer treatment. While working in low-end distribution in an impoverished area of the city, Walts partner, Jesse, is tag-teamed by a meth-addict couple that holds Jesse at knifepoint until he gives them the meth for free. As it turns out, the couples low level on the socioeconomic ladder drives them to theft and violence in the drug market because there is no other way for them to obtain the substance that they need. It was not the psycho-pharmacological effects driving them to commit acts of violence, but rather the economic motivation. Underlying this scene is also a symptom of the unregulated nature of the drug market. Since methamphetamine is a schedule II illicit substance in the United States, Jesse cannot simply report

the couple to the authorities, or call for help. Goldstein alludes to this concept as well when discussing violence associated with the punishment of a worker by a dealer (121). If a worker on the low-end distribution drug market makes a mistake, they may know that they are in danger, but they have no ability to contact authorities to report the imminent punishment, due to the illegal nature of their activities. Peoples socioeconomic situation drives much of the drug market through economic motivation to join the drug business as well as to commit violent acts to obtain the substance/money, and that violence is accentuated by the unregulated nature of the drug business which creates territory disputes and prohibits safety measures that could normally be taken if an individual were involved in the licit drug market. It seems logical then to assume that two things must happen in order for this violence to decrease: (1) decreasing poverty and providing economic opportunities to high-risk areas, and (2) legalizing currently illicit drugs because their unregulated status perpetuates drug market violence.

QUESTION 5 Many people have alleged that the policy response to drugs in the 1980s was significantly shaped by racial dynamics. How could you argue that it is and is not the case? Which argument is more persuasive, and why? The 1980s marked the introduction of crack, a smoke-able form of cocaine, sold primarily in poor, urban neighborhoods in the United States (Beckett). The ensuing policy responses by the federal government surrounding crack were significantly shaped by racial dynamics: (1) the government only heightened drug policing efforts in response to crack, not to the smoke-able freebase cocaine that was the white persons equivalent, and (2) the maximum legal weight that one was able to have of crack was 5 grams versus 500 grams of powder cocaine (Beckett). One could argue that the policies were not racially influenced since there was indeed a kernel of truth to the high-alert crack response: there was a large amount of crack-related crime (Goldstein 123). Nevertheless, this is not a persuasive counter-argument. The media and public perceptions at the time directly linked increased crack-related crime and violence to African-Americans through demonizing depictions and overblown news stories (Beckett). The policies henceforth enacted to curb the increasing crime rate were inevitably influenced by this widely perceived stereotype of the dangerous African-American as the reason that crack-related crime and violence increased. During the War on Drugs lecture, Prof. Beckett stated that when crack was introduced, free-base cocaine was already prevalent in the United States, primarily smoked by white people of upper-middle class (Beckett). The government only heightened drug policing efforts in response to crack, not free-base cocaine therefore exposing the racial undertone of the criminalization since crack was primarily smoked by African-Americans from poor, urban neighborhoods (Beckett). Additionally, a person with cocaine would not be arrested unless they possessed 500 grams, but a person with crack could be arrested with only 5 grams (Beckett). In The New Jim Crow, an analysis of how modern federal policy perpetuates Jim Crow ideals, Michelle Alexander explains that because of this 100:1 ratio and because crack was primarily sold in urban neighborhoods, people of color were more likely to be convicted of drug possession (Alexander 59). These racially charged convictions spurred by the War on Drugs led to mass incarceration rates of colored people (59). Whether this mass incarceration was intended by the policymakers or not, it is apparent that the since crack and powder cocaine have few noticeable differences in pharmacological effects (Beckett), the 100:1 ratio policy was primarily driven by the racial stereotype of the crack user. Some people could argue that the policies enacted were not influenced by racial stigmas. The crack scare, like most other drug scares, did contain a kernel of truth (Reinarman 83) there was an increase in crime and violence with the introduction of crack (Goldstein 123). In Crack and

Homicide in New York City, Goldstein studied this crack-related crime and violence. He found that the majority of the crack-related homicides were due to systemic violence (a direct result of the unregulated market) (Goldstein 123). However, when discussing extensions to Goldstein, Prof. Beckett pointed out that absent of homicides, crack-related crimes are more so driven by economiccompulsion (Beckett). Economic-compulsive violence stems from the socioeconomic situation of the user (Goldstein 115). While media and public perception at the time linked crime and violence related to the crack epidemic directly to the race of the user, Goldstein would argue that it was instead their socioeconomic situation that compelled crack-users to commit violent acts (Beckett). The disregard by people of this reality in favor of the violent African-American stereotype as the source of the increased crime and violence, demonstrates that in fact the policies in reaction to crack use were significantly influenced by racial bias. In conclusion, the policies enacted in the 1980s in response to the introduction of crack cocaine were most definitely influenced by racial stigmas, as is demonstrated by the heightened policing efforts for crack instead of free-base cocaine, and the 100:1 ratio of the legal limit of powder cocaine to crack cocaine. Both directly targeted African-Americans, since they were more likely to use crack. It is true that crack-related crime increased, but this is not a persuasive argument against the claim that anti-crack policies were racially charged, because skewed, racially charged public perceptions inevitably influenced the policies. Perceptions focused on the AfricanAmerican race as the primary factor in the increase of crime and violence rather than acknowledging the real reason for the crack-related violence the socioeconomic situation in which crack-users lived.

QUESTION 6 Identify at least three practices or policies associated with the war on drugs that arguably constitute secondary harms and explain why you believe these practices or policies increase the harm and suffering associated with drug abuse. Since the 1980s, the War on Drugs has attempted to decrease drug-related harm through harsh criminalization and supply reduction techniques (Beckett). Unfortunately, policies and practices influenced by the War on Drugs have actually increased drug-related harm through the introduction of secondary harm. Secondary harm is harm afflicting the drug user and/or the greater society as a direct result of the policies surrounding drug use, rather than the chemical properties of the drug itself (Beckett). The policies of mandatory minimums, the 100:1 cocaine ratio, and overall drug criminalization have produced immense secondary harms. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander discusses law enforcement practices that create harm rather than decrease it (Alexander 88). The policy of mandatory minimums requires that any individual caught with more than the legal limit of a drug, regardless of circumstance, must be sentenced to lengthy prison sentence (usually five or ten years) (88). Mandatory minimum sentencing strips judges of their discretionary power, which is especially relevant in situations where the offender is in extreme poverty or experience[ed] abuse (88). This law causes secondary harm to the individual who may be going through other hardships that prompted the drug use in the first place. Seattle is at the forefront of the progressive movement regarding drug law, including mandatory minimums. The LEAD program allows police to make pre-booking diversions where they give a non-violent drug offender the choice of going to jail or enrolling in a harm reduction treatment program, decreasing secondary harm by addressing the issue behind the individuals addiction (Beckett). The 100:1 ratio causes secondary harm as well. As Prof. Beckett discussed in her lecture, The War on Drugs, an individual could be arrested for possessing one gram of crack while someone else could have up to 100 grams of powder cocaine (Beckett). Since people of color and in poverty were more likely to use crack, the 100:1 ratio disproportionately affected them, causing secondary harm to individuals and societies by incarcerating huge sums of people and thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty (Beckett). In Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle, Prof. Beckett (et al) found that in fact the Seattle police were overwhelmingly focusing on crack over other drugs (Beckett et al 437). The 100:1 ratio implies that crack is more dangerous than powder cocaine. In this way, the ratio may have played a role in influencing law enforcement treatment of crack users (437). Prioritizing crack arrests over

other drugs once again disproportionately incarcerates people of color, causing immense secondary harm to using individuals as well as their minority groups as a whole. Encompassing both of these policies is drug criminalization. A hallmark of the War on Drugs is harsh criminalization for even petty drug crimes. Criminalization targets the low-level, nonviolent drug offenders since the wholesalers and kingpins are hard to track down (Beckett). It causes secondary harm to these low-level offenders because they are now incarcerated for drug possession or selling small quantities and will permanently have a felony on their record, making it harder to re-integrate into mainstream society. The Report on the Global Commission on Drug Policy recognizes the need to end drug criminalization because it marginaliz[es]people who use drugs but do not harm others (2). Prof. Beckett discussed a policy alternative to criminalization: de-penalization. In de-penalization, drug possession offenses are still crimes, but they are not prioritized by law enforcement and therefore are not sought out (Beckett). Not only do the practices of mandatory minimum sentencing, the 100:1 ratio and criminalization as a whole cause secondary harm to individuals and society, but also they come at a great economic cost. It is much more cost effective to provide treatment programs to addicts than to put every low-level, non-violent drug offender behind bars (Beckett). Harm reduction strategies offer exciting promise in the area of reducing individual and societal secondary harm through the LEAD program, and re-orienting law enforcement towards de-penalization rather than harsh criminalization.