Introduction
Drugs are related to crime in various ways. Most obviously, it is a federal crime in most states to consume, possess, make, or distribute drugs that are considered to have the potential to be abused. Meth, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and some stimulants are all examples of drugs classified to have abuse potential. Drugs are also related to crime through the direct effects they have on the individuals’ behavior and by possibly contributing to violence and other illegal offenses that sometimes coincide with drug trafficking. However, new evidence shows that the war on crime is doing more harm to the American people than good. This paper will attempt to describe the multitude of ways that drugs and crime are related, as well as some alternatives to how drugs and crimes are handled in the judicial system within the United States. Some examples include drug defined offenses which is defined as “Violations of laws prohibiting or regulating the possession, use, distribution, or manufacture of illegal drugs” (U.S. Department of Justice). An example of a drug defined offense is drug possession or consumption, growing marijuana, or the sales of any aforementioned drug. Another is drug related offenses, which is defined as “Offenses in which a drug’s pharmacologic effects contribute; offenses motivated by the user’s need for money to support continued use; and offenses connected to drug distribution itself” (U.S. Department of Justice). An example of this would be overly aggressive behavior caused by drug use, stealing in order to get money to buy drugs, or violence against other drug dealers. A final drug-crime relationship is drug using lifestyle which is defined as “The likelihood and frequency of involvement in illegal activity being increased because drug users may not participate in the legitimate economy and are exposed to situations that encourage crime” (U.S. Department of Justice). An example of this is like a lifestyle focused primarily on short term goals that are often supported by illegal activities. Likelihood of committing a criminal offense is much higher due to interaction with criminal offenders and criminal methods learned from other offenders. These are only a few of the relationships that exists between drugs and crime but provide a good general summary.
Body
According to an opinion post by Bernard Horn of the Public Leadership Institute, the spike in violence in some cities is due to the increased use of synthetic drugs. These drugs tend to be cheap and widely available, especially in poverty-stricken neighborhoods. What’s more is that the chemical makeup of these drugs varies widely, which could explain why it’s a much bigger issue in some cities compared to others (Opinion | Drugs and Crime). However, it’s not just these street drugs that have the most impact. Drugs that are household names are more common than one would think. This is the case with meth. The terrible effects of meth have seemingly been forgotten due to the current opioid crisis, but meth has come back vey recently. As a matter of fact, agents at the United States border control have reported seizing 10 to 20 times more meth than they did a decade ago. Experts add that it “has never been purer, cheaper or more lethal” (Robles). Since the state of Oregon mandated that doctors needed to provide prescriptions for the common nasal decongestant used to make it in 2006, two things have happened. First the overall number of meth labs in Oregon has greatly declined, also with it the number of children and police officers harmed by exposure to dangerous chemicals. But also, two: There is more meth on the streets today, more people are using it, and more of them are dying than ever before (Robles). This hardly makes sense, especially with all these measures taken against meth. With congress’ Combat Methamphetamine Act, pseudoephedrine (what meth is derived from) was put behind the counter, sales of it were limited to 7.5 grams per customer in a 30-day period and pharmacies were required to track sales (DrugRehab.org). While some meth makers tried compensating for this by sending people to several pharmacies to buy pseudoephedrine, meth cases dropped dramatically. So why is there more meth on the streets and more deaths than ever? As it turns out, when the ingredients became difficult to obtain in the United States, Mexican drug cartels swooped in to fill the void. Once upon a time the fight was targeted towards pharmacies. Now fighting meth often means being vigilant for ready-made product being distributed by the truckload quite literally on American highways. With the cartels flooding the market with so much highly potent, cheap, meth dealers have more than enough, maybe even too much. To get rid of the overwhelming amount of product they have, dealers are selling meth to their customers on credit (Robles). This practice was unheard of years ago. “A wholesale plummet of price per pound, combined with a huge increase of purity, tells me they have perfected the production or manufacturing of methamphetamine,” said Steven Bell, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration. “They have figured out the chemical reactions to get the best bang for their bucks”. It’s clear that cartels are more efficient in their production and distribution methods than they ever have been.
Nationally, nearly 6,000 people died from stimulant use (which mostly comprises of meth) in 2015, this is a staggering a 255 percent increase from 2005 (dea.gov). In Oregon, 232 people died from meth use in 2016, nearly twice as many as died from heroin according to the state Department of Health. This is because Heroin is a depressant, which calm nerves and relax muscles. Meth, however, is a stimulant. Like the name implies, they stimulate the brain and central nervous system. Stimulants induce alertness, elevated mood, wakefulness, increased speech and motor activity. Sergeant Kubic, of the Portland Police Bureau said “Tweakers are jacked up. They have lowered inhibitions and are awake 24/7, running around at night, so burglaries become easier.” The cartels’ reach has gone well past Oregon. In 2016, customs authorities in San Diego seized 21,747 pounds of meth, almost 10 times what was apprehended in 2007. At border points in Arizona, California and Texas, agents seized 24 times as much (DEA.gov). In Montana, meth crimes have more than tripled between 2010 and 2015 (Montana Department of Justice).
As mentioned previously, drug defined offenses are pretty common. One example was stealing in order to get money for drugs. This is exactly what happened to Julie Eldred of Stow, Massachusetts who was granted probation for stealing jewelry to buy drugs. As soon as she was released she quickly filled up her time by obeying the judge’s conditions. This included beginning an intensive all-day outpatient treatment program. Determined, Eldred even went the extra mile and began to take a daily dose of Suboxone, which is a medication prescribed to stop opiate cravings (Hoffman). Unfortunately, like most people in her situation, she relapsed. Her go to drug was fentanyl. In order to prevent herself from going deeper into the rabbit hole, she requested a stronger dose of Suboxone from her doctor. Following the increased dose, she remained clean for nearly two weeks. However, after her first drug screen, she tested positive. It turned out that traces of the fentanyl had remained in her system. She was immediately searched, handcuffed and incarcerated, as this was a clear violation of her probation. During the 10 days she spent in prison while her lawyer looked for residential treatment, Eldred did not receive a single Suboxone pill, let alone any drug counseling (Hoffman). It could be argued that her treatment was unethical due to the withdrawals she experienced.
This raises the question of whether or not an addict’s relapse should be punished with a criminal sanction? This very question was put forth to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In Commonwealth v. Julie Eldred, the justices, presiding over the state’s highest court, are debating whether the condition of her probation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for an offender with a substance use disorder. To reach a decision the justices have to determine if addiction is a brain disease that interferes with one’s capacity to abstain. Or a condition, rather than a disease, that is responsive to repercussions and rewards. Law enforcement have intensely argued that the possibility of imprisonment protects not only potential offenders, but also society as a whole from drug-related crimes. On the other hand, many addiction specialists argue that the current methods employed by the criminal justice system is a terrible way to address the public health epidemic that is addiction. The Eldred case is no doubt a tough one as Eric E. Sterling, executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation points out “We’re punishing someone who has a disease. Yet we don’t want to create an exemption from punishment for people who commit crimes when they are addicts”. In a brief signed by addiction medicine experts and policymakers, it is said that due to the nature of brain addiction, relapse is not only involuntary, but expected during the recovery process (Belger). According to Lisa Newman-Polk, Ms. Eldred’s lawyer, a former social worker, relapse isn’t someone purposely defying a court order but rather “A symptom of the disease and a signal that the addiction is active”. She affirmed that instead of sending Eldred to jail, a judge could have easily given the treatment more time to be effective. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals submitted a report on behalf of 3,400 drug courts noted that said the biggest determining factor in the success of drug rehabilitation programs depends on a judge applying sanctions, to send a defendant through treatment. Dr. Gene M. Heyman, an experimental psychologist, as well as a main author of the brief, offers a point of view from both sides of the coin when he says, “Jail won’t solve the problem, but it might stop some people from continuing to use or even overdose.” However, Eldred contests that by saying that drugs are readily available in jail, she adds an inmate even died of overdose during her time there. Since the end of her case in August, Eldred has moved into an apartment with her fiancé and is leading a clean, normal, life. Some have argued that it was a combination of jail time and probation that lead to this desirable outcome. Eldred’s lawyer contests that by saying it was “…sustained treatment with medication and family support, which is exactly what the court interrupted by jailing her.” Other Prosecutors have pointed to Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) as a model. Members of the program are told they will be tested randomly and frequently. Incarceration is still possible, although it’s often brief. Because of the program’s low rate of recidivism among those having gone through the program, it has drawn national acclaim. Unfortunately, studies conducted to replicate the results of HOPE have failed to reduce rates of crime and drug abuse. During the supreme court case Eldred’s lawyers relied on Robinson v. California, which concluded that selling or possessing illegal drugs was against the law, but the state could not punish people solely for the status of their illness (“Robinson v. California.” Oyez).
During the Eldred case, justices in Massachusetts noted that since many offenders commit crimes because of their addictions, shouldn’t they be ordered to be drug-free to prevent criminal behavior? To address this question Kelly Mitchell of the University of Minnesota Law School’s Robina Institute for Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, suggested a compromise. Instead of a violation being from remaining drug free, a judge could order the offender to be evaluated for substance use disorder and to follow treatment any recommendations, failure to do this would be the violation. Hopefully, the Eldred case can be an example of a better way to address the thousands of drug related offenses that occur daily in the United States. As definitions of addiction become more widely accepted and data suggesting the usefulness of rehabilitation programs one could hope to see less cases like that of Julie Eldred’s coming through the judicial system.
There are many proposals regarding ways to further promote the restriction of drugs, but one that is rarely put forth is the legalization and decriminalization of drugs. Danielle Allen, a political theorist at Harvard University recommends that if society “viewed drug use as a public health problem, not a crime, we can fight drugs without producing the other sorts of social damage we see all around us” (washingtonpost.com). According to a report from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Americans of all races and ethnicities spend an estimated $100 billion annually on illegal drugs. To put this massive figure in perspective, for 2018, the Department of Defense’s budget is $639 billion. That speaks volumes about how prominent drug use is within this country. Although drug use is clearly common, Allen argues it’s hypocritical to lock up nonviolent offenders, but also adds “This would be only a small step toward rectification of the problem of mass incarceration. Such a move would reduce our state and federal prison populations by only about 14 percent. We would still be the world’s leading imprisoner” (Allen). This brings up a good point regarding violence in the United States. There’s no way $100 billion worth of illegal drugs could flow through this country without assault and homicide. That’s all the more reason to legalize and decriminalize drugs in the United States. Drugs have been, and always will be used, so current legislation making drugs illegal are essentially unenforceable. According to a recent study titled, “Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on US Crime”, it states that legalized medical use of marijuana experienced a 13 percent drop in violent crime on average. This is because a majority of the marijuana consumed in the United States is from Mexico where many drug cartels control the drug trade. One of the authors of the study, economist, Evelina Gavrilova, says that “These growers are in direct competition with Mexican drug cartels that are smuggling the marijuana into the US. As a result, the cartels get much less business” (Doward). Laws like these are beneficial because not only is violence reduced, but farmers that grow and sell marijuana legally are able to contribute to the local economy as well. In states like Colorado, and Washington where full legalization has occurred, the impact on cartels is even stronger because large scale production of marijuana within the states will reduce the demand for marijuana supplied by cartels. These are important results that policy makers need to keep in mind. This also applies to much more dangerous drugs than marijuana. In the United States, deaths from drug overdose is rampant. One explanation for this is that people avoid treatment for fear of legal repercussions. If drugs are decriminalized millions of Americans will be able to seek out the help they need. (Davies). Furthermore, the billions of dollars spent to arrest people would be better suited to increasing access to drug treatment and education programs. Socially speaking, racial and ethnic disparities in various levels of the criminal justice system have come out from discriminatory enforcement of drug possession laws. Consider that African Americans make up only 13 percent of the population in the United States, yet they make up for 29 percent of those arrested for drug law violations and 35 percent of those incarcerated in state prison for drug possession (Davies). On a more positive note, the United States is moving in the right direction, despite the current administration. For instance, the state of Oregon has reduced drug possession to a misdemeanor from a felony. For an example of the type of impact decriminalization and investment in treatment and education programs can make on public health and well-being, legislators should turn to Portugal. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized low-level possession and use of all illegal drugs, this was the most extensive law of its kind. That means no is arrested or put in prison for drug possession in present day Portugal. What’s more is that among people aged 15-64 only three adults per million die due to drug overdose. These is nearly the lowest rate in Europe where the EU average is 17.3 people per million (Ingraham). Very recently, polls of the American people have shown strong support of decriminalization. As a matter of fact, the Hawaii legislature, meanwhile, approved a bill last year creating a commission to study decriminalization. In a joint statement from the United Nations and World Health Organization the two major groups called for laws that criminalize drug use and possession to be repealed. They reason that especially in healthcare settings, the most marginalized and stigmatized populations are discriminated against (Joint United Nations Statement on Ending Discrimination in Health Care Settings). By now, it should be apparent that the current approach to drugs in both the United States and many parts of the world is misguided. Dr. Chris Beyrer of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, states this well when he says, “The goal of prohibiting all use, possession, production and trafficking of illicit drugs is the basis of many of our national drug laws, but these policies are based on ideas about drug use and drug dependence that are not scientifically grounded” (Ingraham). To get an idea of how outdated this approach is, the last United Nation’s special session on drugs was in 1998 and the goal of a drug-free world by 2008 was set forth. It’s said that the UN’s drug regulators have failed to see the difference between drug use and drug abuse. The biggest misconception is that all drugs are bad and have led to enforcement policies that could easily be applied to other potentially dangerous products like tobacco, alcohol, and even food. The findings from the research conducted by Johns Hopkins show that of an estimated 246 million people who used illicit drugs in the past year, only around 11 percent experienced problem drug use, which was defined as drug dependence or drug-use disorders (Ingraham). What this shows is that not all drug use is abuse as commonly believed. During the UN’s next special session on drugs, it will be no easy task to get 200 countries to agree on any one policy, but data from the Johns Hopkins Commission as well as real world results like that of Portugal will be a driving force in the Process.
Conclusion
It’s no question that drugs are related to crime. But due to the nature of people, they could very well be an ever-present component of our society and it’s simply unreasonable to think that legislation will ever change that. With that said, the current approach should be reconsidered. Whether it’s legalizing so cartels have less influence or decriminalizing so millions like Julie Eldred don’t have to suffer, an alternate approach to drug laws and crimes could greatly improve the health and social wellbeing of millions, even billions in the United States and globally.