Jump to content

Drug prohibition: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 173384359 by 71.210.161.65 (talk) rv blanking
I'm losing faith in WP: it's all about US...
Line 1: Line 1:
{{For|present-day attempts since 1971 to enforce drug prohibition in the U.S.|War on Drugs}}
{{For|present-day attempts since 1971 to enforce drug prohibition in the U.S.|War on Drugs}}
{{For|the general concept|Prohibitionism}}
{{For|the general concept|Prohibitionism}}

{{globalize}}


[[Image:Page-05a.jpeg|thumb|right|250px|U.S. [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] point their guns inside a house.]]
[[Image:Page-05a.jpeg|thumb|right|250px|U.S. [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] point their guns inside a house.]]

Revision as of 10:49, 25 November 2007

For present-day attempts since 1971 to enforce drug prohibition in the U.S., see War on Drugs.
For the general concept, see Prohibitionism.
File:Page-05a.jpeg
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration point their guns inside a house.

The prohibition of drugs through sumptuary legislation or religious law is the common means of controlling the perceived consequences or natural right of drug use. Prohibition of drugs has existed at various levels of government or other authority, from the Middle Ages to the present.

Islamic countries mostly prohibit the use of alcohol. Many non-Islamic governments levy a sin tax on alcohol and tobacco products, and restrict alcohol and tobacco from sales or gifts to minors. Other common restrictions include bans on outdoor drinking and indoor smoking. The United States, Finland, Canada, and the USSR also instituted alcohol prohibition in the first half of the 20th century. While most drugs are legal to possess, many countries regulate the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of some drugs, for instance through a prescription system. Only certain drugs are banned with a "blanket prohibition" against all use. However, the prohibited drugs generally continue to be available through the illegal drug trade. The most widely banned substances include psychoactive drugs, although blanket prohibition also extends to some steroids and other drugs. Many governments do not criminalize the possession of a limited quantity of certain drugs for personal use, while still prohibiting their sale or manufacture, or possession in large quantities. Some laws set a specific volume of a particular drug, above which is considered ipso jure to be evidence of trafficking or sale of the drug.

History

The cultivation, use and trade of psychoactive and other drugs has occurred since prior to civilization's existence. Religious governments probably began to criminalize drugs' possession and trade in the Middle Ages, and such legislation has continued until the present day, by both religious and non-religious governments. In the 20th century, the United States led a major renewed surge in drug prohibition called the "War on Drugs." Although the present War on Drugs is a modern phenomenon, drug laws have been a common feature of human law for several hundred years. Today's War on Drugs bears many similarities to earlier drug laws, particularly in motivation.

Motivations claimed by supporters of drug prohibition laws across various societies and eras have included religious observance, allegations of violence by racial minorities, and public health concerns. Those who are not proponents of anti-drug legislation characterize these motivations as religious intolerance, racism, and public healthism.

Early drug laws

Perhaps the earliest recorded example is the prohibition of the use of alcohol under Islamic law (Sharia), which is usually attributed to passages in the Qur'an dating from the 7th century. Like other Sharia laws, alcohol prohibition is enforced by Mutaween, the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Some Muslim scholars assert that this prohibition actually addresses only the abuse of alcohol, but they do not have sufficient numbers or authority to override the familiar total prohibition. Although Islamic law is often interpreted as prohibiting all intoxicants (not only alcohol), the ancient practice of hashish smoking has continued throughout the history of Islam, against varying degrees of resistance. A major campaign against hashish-eating Sufis was conducted in Egypt in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields of cannabis, and the public torture of hashish users.

Religious intolerance was also the motivation for drug prohibition in Christian Europe. In a move interpreted as support for the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis. The persecution of heretics in the form of witch hunts also gathered momentum around this time, and frequently targeted users of medicinal and hallucinogenic herbs. The Inquisition proceeded apace in Meso-America and South America, where peyote (péyotl), ololiúqui, toloáche, teonanácatl and other sacred plants of the Mexican culture were prohibited as works of the devil.

In Northern Europe, the Protestants were also responsible for passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance, according to Stephen Harrod Buhner. Buhner argues that the 1516 Reinheitsgebot, which stipulates that beer may only contain water, barley and hops was a "reflection of Protestant irritation about 'drugs' and the Catholic Church". Unlike the typically stimulating herbal blends widely used at the time (e.g. gruit), hops cause sedation and reduce libido. The exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268.

Coffee almost followed the same fate as cannabis as its use spread from Ethiopia through the Middle East to Europe. Its use was banned in the Middle East on numerous occasions as conflicting with Islamic law, but eventually it came to be accepted. The introduction of coffee in Europe from Muslim Turkey also prompted calls for it to be banned as the devil's work, however Pope Clement VIII sanctioned its use, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it".

In late Qing Imperial China, opium imported by the British East India Company was vastly consumed by all social classes in Southern China. Between 1821 and 1837 imports of the drug increased fivefold. The Chinese government attempted to end this trade, on public health grounds. The effort was initially successful with the destruction of all British opium stock in May 1839. However, to protect this trade, the British declared war on China (First Opium War). China was defeated and the war ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which protected foreign opium traders from Chinese law. A related American treaty promised to end the smuggling of opium by Americans. It took until the next Opium War for the trade to be legalized. The resulting trade purportedly set into motion a chain of events that would lead to the massive Taiping Rebellion.

Prohibition of opium

The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The claimed inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise," although there is no evidence to suggest this actually happened. The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug [citation needed]. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants smoked it, while it was included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines for people of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion. [1] As a result of this discrepancy, modern commentators believe that these laws were racist in origin and intent.

Prohibition of cocaine

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.

The Harrison Act

This was followed by the Harrison Act, passed in 1914, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). While originally intended to require paper trails of drug transactions between doctors, drug stores, and patients, it soon became a prohibitive law. The law’s wording was quite vague; it was originally intended as a revenue tracking mechanism that required prescriptions for opiates. It became legal precedent that any prescription for a narcotic given by a physician or pharmacist – even in the course of medical treatment for addiction - constituted conspiracy to violate the Harrison Act. In the Supreme Court decision Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920) the court upheld that it was a violation of the Harrison Act even if a physician provided prescription of a narcotic for an addict, and thus subject to criminal prosecution. The initial proponents of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1. This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. Soon, however, licensing bodies did not issues licenses, effectively banning the drugs.

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Prohibition of alcohol

The prohibition of alcohol commenced in Finland in 1919 and in the United States in 1920. Because alcohol was the most popular recreational drug in these countries, reactions to its prohibition were very different than to the prohibition of other drugs, which were commonly perceived to be associated with racial and ethnic minorities. Public pressure led to the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933 in the United States, and in 1932 in Finland. Residents of many provinces of Canada also experienced alcohol prohibition for similar periods of time in the first half of the 20th century.

In Sweden, a referendum in 1922 decided against an alcohol prohibition law (with 51% of the votes against and 49% for prohibition), but starting in 1914 (nationwide from 1917) and until 1955 Sweden employed an alcohol rationing system with personal liquor ration books ("motbok").

The Marijuana Tax Act

Further information: Legal history of marijuana in the United States

In the middle of the 1930s all member states in the United States had some regulation of cannabis.[1][2] . The Marijuana Tax Act passed in 1937 quickly and with little debate and no opposition in Congress.The American Medical Association (AMA) supported a federal law, but recommended that marijuhana to be added to the Harrison Narcotic Act[3].

The passing of this law, along with the subsequent lies regarding the effects of cannabis, have been deemed by opponents as both a conspiracy and a racist act directed at Mexicans. Although the latter is true, some (such as Jack Herer) have argued that the law was passed in order to prohibit industrial hemp from becoming a competing industry with paper and cotton, but more importantly, newly discovered plastics (DuPont's Nylon), and the fuel industry. An alternative explanation is that it was believed that it could be easer to supervise the law if hemp was included.

Counter-culture and the War on Drugs

American drug law enforcement agents detain a man in 2005.

In response to rising drug use among young people and the counter-culture movement, government efforts to enforce prohibition were strengthened in many countries from the late 1960s onwards. In 1972 United States President Richard Nixon announced the commencement of the so-called "War on Drugs." Later, President Reagan added the position of drug czar to the President's Executive Office.

Support at an international level for the prohibition of psychoactive drug use has been a consistent feature of United States policy during both Republican and Democratic administrations, to such an extent that US support for foreign governments is sometimes contingent on adherence to US drug policy. Major milestones in this campaign include the introduction of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971 and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in 1988.

In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (113g) of a so-called hard drug, called the Rockefeller drug laws after New York Governor and later Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. Similar laws were introduced across the United States.

California's broader 'three strikes and you're out' policy adopted in 1994 was the first mandatory sentencing policy to gain widespread publicity and was subsequently adopted in most United States jurisdictions. This policy mandates life imprisonment for a third criminal conviction of any offense.

A similar 'three strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug.

Present

In the United States today, mandatory sentencing laws are being questioned, due to prison overcrowding and controversy about the ethics of convicting non-violent drug users. Starting in 1989, a new institution was created, called the drug court, which offers non-violent drug users accused of crimes the opportunity to complete substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The program, supported by the Department of Justice grew to over 1,200 drug courts in each of the fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia by 2003. Drug courts are touted as one way to reduce criminal justice costs, although those who support drug legalization criticize them as "forced treatment."

Large movements have grown in numerous countries proposing various policy changes such as drug relegalization and drug decriminalization. For instance, there is a movement for marijuana legalization in Canada, as well as the Marijuana Party of Canada.

Various drug liberalization policies are often supported by proponents of liberalism and libertarianism. Continued drug criminalization is more typically supported by proponents of conservatism.

The current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Czar, John P. Walters has described the drug problem in the United States as a "public health challenge," and he has publicly eschewed the notion of a "war on drugs." He has supported additional resources for substance abuse treatment and has touted random student drug testing as an effective prevention strategy. However, the actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy continue to belie the rhetoric of a shift away from primarily enforcement-based responses to illegal drug use. [4]

Opium cultivation in Afghanistan

A field of opium poppies growing in Afghanistan.
Main article: Opium production in Afghanistan

In July 2000, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan banned opium as "against Islam." After the Taliban was ousted, opium cultivation resumed in more widespread areas and in greater yield. In April 2004, Afghan interim president Hamid Karzai declared a jihad on drugs (after opium output reached a near-record 3,600 tonnes in 2003 — equivalent to three-quarters of world supply). Over the next two years, despite the assistance of several hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign anti-drug support, Afghanistan has raised opium production to 6,100 tonnes in 2006, produced on 407,000 acres (1,650 km²) of land, including nearly 30,000 acres (120 km²) of government land - a production estimated to exceed the global demand for opium by thirty percent. [2]

Drug prohibition laws

The following frequently used drugs are prohibited or otherwise regulated for recreational use in most countries:

The regulation of the above drugs varies in many countries; cannabis and hashish, for example, are sometimes legal for personal use, though not sale. In some countries Dextromethorphan is available in ordinary over-the-counter products such as cough medicines. Alcohol possession and consumption by adults is today banned only in Islamic countries and various parts of India. The United States, Finland, and Canada banned alcohol in the early part of the 20th century; this was called Prohibition. Tobacco is not illegal for adults in most countries, with the notable exception of Bhutan (as of 2005). In some parts of the world, provisions are made for the use of traditional sacraments like Ayahuasca, Iboga, and Peyote. In Gabon, Africa, iboga (Tabernanthe iboga) has been declared a national treasure and is used in rites of the Bwiti religion. The active ingredient, ibogaine, is proposed as a treatment of opioid withdrawal and various substance use disorders.

In countries where alcohol and tobacco are legal, certain measures are frequently undertaken to discourage use of these drugs. For example, packages of alcohol and tobacco sometimes communicate warnings directed towards the consumer, communicating the potential risks of partaking in the use of the substance. These drugs also frequently have special sin taxes associated with the purchase thereof, in order to recoup the losses associated with public funding for the health problems the use causes in long-term users. Restrictions on advertising also exist in many countries, and often a state holds a monopoly on manufacture, distribution, marketing and/or the sale of these drugs.

In the United States, there is considerable legal debate about the impact these laws have had on Americans' civil rights. Critics claim that the War on Drugs has lowered the evidentiary burden required for a legal search of a suspect's dwelling or vehicle, or to intercept a suspect's communications. However, many of the searches that result in drug arrests are often "commission" to search a person or the person's property.

People who consent to a search, knowing full well that they possess contraband, generally consent because they are ignorant of the fact that they have the right to decline permission to search. Under the laws of most U.S. states, police are not required to disclose to suspects that they have the right to decline a search. Even when a suspect does not give permission to search, police are often known [citation needed]to state in arrest affidavits and even provide sworn testimony that the suspect consented to the search, secure in the knowledge that a judge will normally weigh all questions of credibility in favour of law enforcement and against the accused.

The sentencing statutes in the United States Code that cover controlled substances are notoriously intricate. For example, a first-time offender convicted in a single proceeding for selling marijuana three times, and found to have carried a gun on him all three times (even if it were not used) is subject to a minimum sentence of 55 years in federal prison. U.S. v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Utah 2004).

Drug sentencing guidelines under state law in America are generally much less harsh than the draconian federal sentencing guidelines. The vast majority of drug felonies and almost all drug misdemeanors in the United States are prosecuted at the state level. The federal government tends to prosecute only drug trafficking cases involving large amounts of drugs, or cases, which have been referred to federal prosecutors by local district attorneys seeking harsher sentences under the federal sentencing guidelines. In rare instances, some defendants are prosecuted both federally and by the state for the same drug trafficking conduct. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant does not face double jeopardy if he is convicted and sentenced by both the state and federal government for the same underlying criminal conduct.

Sometimes, crimes not directly related to drug use and sale are prohibited. For example, the United States recently brought charges against club owners for maintaining a place of business where a) Ecstasy is known to be frequently consumed; b) paraphernalia associated with the use of Ecstasy is sold and/or widely tolerated (such as glow sticks and pacifiers); and c) "chill-out rooms" are created, where Ecstasy users can cool down (Ecstasy users in club settings tend to dance for extended periods of time, raising the user's blood temperature). These are being challenged in court by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Drug Policy Alliance.

Drug prohibition has created several legal dilemmas. For example many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as failing to ensure equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.

Another legal dilemma is the creation of a legal loop hole allowing for the arbitrary arrest and prosecution of anyone in several countries. This is the result of several drugs such as Dimethyltryptamine, GHB and morphine being illegal to possess but also inherently present in all humans as a result of endogenous synthesis. Since some jurisdictions classify possession of drugs to include having the drug present in the blood in any concentration, all residents of such countries are technically in possession of multiple illegal drugs at all times.

The War on Drugs has stimulated the creation of international law enforcement agencies (such as Interpol), mostly in Western countries. This has occurred because a large volume of illicit drugs come from Third-World countries.

Penalties

United States

Main article: Drug policy of the United States

Drug possession is the crime of having one or more illegal drugs in one's possession, either for personal use, distribution, sale or otherwise. Illegal drugs fall into different categories and sentences vary depending on the amount, type of drug, circumstances, and jurisdiction.

In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and sale can vary from a small fine to a prison sentence. In some states, marijuana possession is considered to be a petty offense, with the penalty being comparable to that of a speeding violation. In some municipalities, possessing a small quantity of marijuana in one's own home is not punishable at all. Generally, however, drug possession is an arrestable offense, although first-time offenders rarely serve jail time.

Federal law makes even possession of soft drugs such as cannabis illegal, though some local governments have laws contradicting federal laws. Federal law overrules state/local law, though some argue it should not as the Constitution gives police powers to the states.

In the U.S., the War on Drugs is causing a prison overcrowding problem. In 1996, 59.6% of prisoners were drug-related criminals. U.S. population grew by about +25% from 1980 to 2000. In that same 20 year time period, U.S. prison population tripled. To make room in prison for incoming drug users and dealers, all inmates, including violent criminals are having their sentences shortened or are being paroled early. This is why mandatory sentencing laws are being repealed.

Australia

There is a movement in Australia to make some substances decriminalised, particularly cannabis, making the possession of such a non-convictable offence in most states (however, the definition of what constitutes possession can differ between states). Heroin trials have been tried in various states with mixed results.

As a result of the decriminalisation, the punishments for drug use and drug dealing in Australia are typically very small, with many convicted small-time drug dealers not having to spend any time in jail.

There is an associated pro-drugs culture amongst a minority of the youth of Australia. The popular national youth radio station Triple J often refers to drug use with a neutral sentiment, rarely discouraging their use. Many take this neutrality as an encouragement to use drugs, and a feeling of drug use being acceptable in Australia. However, there is still law enforcement targeting drugs, particularly in the party scene.

The Netherlands

Related article: Drug policy of the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, cannabis and other "soft" drugs are fully decriminalised in small quantities. They treat the problem as more of a public health issue than a criminal issue. Contrary to popular belief, cannabis is still illegal, mostly to satisfy the country's agreements with the United Nations. Coffee shops that sell cannabis are tolerated across the country, and pay taxes like any other business for their drug sales, although distribution is a grey area that the authorities would rather not go into as it is not decriminalised. Many "coffee shops" are found in Amsterdam and cater mainly to the large tourist trade; the local consumption rate is far lower than in the US.

Similarly to the rest of the European Union member states and American democracies, controlled drugs are illegal in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, illegal narcotics are consumed worldwide, causing concern in the international community. According to the United Nations Drug Control Program, results in the 2001 World Drug Report estimate "that the extent of drug abuse in the world involves about 180 million people, which represents 3% of the global population. The majority of drug users (80%) used cannabis, followed by amphetamine-type stimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine and substances of the ecstasy group (16%), cocaine (8%), heroin (5%) and other opiates (2%)".

The administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the drug policies include the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, and the Ministry of Finance. It is important to note that local authorities also shape local policy, within the national framework. The prohibition policy is heavily influenced by the international community (through the United Nations), especially the neighboring states of France and Germany, which pressure the kingdom to be more strict, for they are directly affected through the illegal trafficking of narcotics coming from the Netherlands.

Legally, possession, manufacturing, trafficking, importation and exportation are forbidden. Nonetheless, it is not an offense to use drugs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2003). There are different penalties involved when breaking the law, which may include a monetary fine, imprisonment, or both. To apply the law, the government differentiates between "soft" and "hard" drugs. Soft drugs are considered to produce less harm to both the individual and society, these being used mainly for homeopathic and recreational purposes. This category encompasses cannabis (nederwiet), hashish and some fungi. Hard drugs are considered to cause considerable personal harm through addiction and physical detriment, as well as nuisance to society, by increasing crime and deteriorating families. Cocaine, heroin, etc. belong to this category.

Along with these two categories, there is a pyramid of priority when it comes to prosecution by law enforcement agencies.

  1. The handling and trade of hard drugs is on the zenith, being a joint target not only by the Netherlands, but also by the international community. This can be punished by maximum sentences of twelve years of imprisonment and/or a fine of up to €45.000.
  2. The second priority is given to the production and trade of soft drugs. Deviation from the AHOJ-G criteria for coffee shops may result in up to four years of imprisonment and/or a fine of €45.000.
  3. The third priority focuses on hard drug users. Instead of labeling the users of hard drugs as "criminals", the state aims to rehabilitate users and prevent others from becoming addicted. However, disturbance to society cased by the consumption of hard drugs can result in one year of prison and/or a €11.250 fine. Lastly, individuals possessing more than five grams for personal consumption, or disturbing the public, can go to prison for one month and/or be fined €2.250.

There are varying rules within this categories, for example the amount possessed, the role played in the transaction and the intent of the goods.

As regards coffee shops, the line between law and practice thins. A coffee shop is a heavily controlled business establishment where individuals can purchase a personal dose of soft drugs in the form of joints, pastry, drinks and packages. In theory illegal, these shops must abide by governmental and local regulations, as well as meet the AHOJ-G criteria, an acronym for: No Advertising, Hard drugs, Nuisance of any kind, Jongeren (minors under 18), and a limit of five grams per transaction. Additionally, the maximum stock at any time is five hundred grams. Local governments may impose additional rules, such as closing times, zoning (coffee shops may not be close to schools), and parking restrictions. The rationale behind coffee shops is to keep citizens away from the hard drugs scene, bringing them to a safe, social, and regulated environment.

When analyzing the Dutch model, both disadvantages and advantages can be drawn when comparing the results with other countries. On a moral argument, tolerating soft drugs can be seen as the defeat of the government against hedonism. Additionally, decades of growing and perfecting cannabis and hashish has resulted in increased levels of the main active hallucinogenic constituent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as levels have doubled, making the derived products more powerful.

On the other side, gedoogbeleid has considerable advantages, making it the most successful policy in the post-industrial world. To begin, this tolerance did not result in hordes of young Dutch queuing in coffee shops after school; the coffe shop lose its license if it sell to minors. Though there was a slight increase of use at the beginning, the rates balanced out some years later. The presence of coffee shops does not translate in public urge for experimentation. In fact, most people that did not consume drugs before the enhancement of the policy continue not to use them.

Tolerating soft drugs also leads to a more cohesive society, where everyone is represented, even those who decide to use drugs as a recreational item, just like Heineken, a pseudo-symbol of national pride, is widely consumed and exported around the EU and the world. Having users as part of the public sphere also aids the government to conduct studies on the medical and psychosocial consequences of drugs, allowing it to draft improved policies, and serve as an example to the world, as well as aiding those who need professional help, which would hesitate less to seek help if there is no stigma associated with their habit. Eliminating the taboo element associated with illegality, many curious consumers would not even ponder soft drugs as a source of deviance. Incorporating drugs in the market economy also entitles the government to regulate doses and the contents of the products, further reducing potential harm to individuals. The dangers of the underground market are in theory also highly reduced by condoning small-scale trade, making the establishments more accessible to the public. In practice is Netherlands an international center for illegal large scale drug trade.

When compared to other countries, Dutch drug consumption falls in the European average at six per cent regular use (twenty-one per cent at some point in life) and considerably lower than the Anglo-Saxon countries headed by the United States with an eight per cent recurring use (thirty-four at some point in life). Experts have come to the conclusion that the policies applied do not play a striking role in these statistics, though there is debate over this issue (CEDRO, 2004).

A major argument in favor of drug prohibition is that it maintains the well-being of citizens. Substances such as cigarettes and alcohol can prove to be a much higher risk factor to the consumer, resulting in similar and other worse side effects. A higher percent of THC in the marijuana sold by the coffe shops and an increasing number of people looking for help with their cannabis addiction [5], in addition to increased international pressure, has moved the public opinion in a more restrictive direction. The number of coffee shops (one third of the total is located in Amsterdam) has decreased by almost one half and is expected to further decrease, as the municipalities tighten regulations. The latest news is closing of nearly half of the coffe shops in Rotterdam in 2009. Most municipalities has today no coffe shops.

Indonesia

Indonesia carries a maximum penalty of death for drug dealing, and a maximum of 15 years prison for drug use. In practice, this is rarely carried out against Indonesian citizens, however they have controversially executed many overseas tourists to the country.

In 2004, Australian citizen Schappelle Corby was convicted of smuggling 4.4 kilograms of cannabis in to Bali, a crime that carried a maximum penalty of death. Her trial reached the verdict of guilty with a punishment of 20 years imprisonment. Corby claimed to be an unwitting drug mule.

Australian citizens known as the "Bali Nine" were caught smuggling heroin, and each face the death penalty.

In August 2005, Australian model Michelle Leslie was arrested with two Ecstasy pills. She pleaded guilty to possession and in November 2005 was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, which she was deemed to have already served, and was released from prison immediately upon her admission of guilt on the charge of possession.

Methods of law enforcement

Because the possession of drugs is a victimless crime that can be committed in privacy, in order to enforce prohibitionist laws a government requires methods of law enforcement to inspect even private property. In societies with strong property laws or individual rights, this may present conflicts or violations of rights.

Disrupting the market relies on eradication, interdiction and domestic law enforcement efforts.

Through cooperation with governments such as those of Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan, coca (the plant source for cocaine) and poppy (the plant source for opium and heroin) are eradicated by the United States and other allies such as the United Kingdom, so that the crops cannot be processed into narcotics. Eradication can be accomplished by aerial spraying or manual eradication.

Police search the vehicle of a suspected drug smuggler at a border between two states. Wentworth, New South Wales, Australia.

The government of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has resisted criticism of aerial spraying of coca and poppy and has seen major reductions in both crops according to the United Nations Office of Crime and Drugs (See also Plan Colombia).Template:Fnb In 2003, over 1,300 square kilometres of mature coca were sprayed and eradicated in Colombia, where at the start of the year, approximately 1,450 square kilometres had been planted. This strategic accomplishment prevented the production over 500 tonnes of cocaine, sufficient to supply all the cocaine addicts in both US and Europe for one year. Further, it eliminated upward of $100 million of illicit income that supports narco-terrorism in Colombia.Template:Fnb No effect on prices or availability in the marketplace has been noted, and the actual number of acres of coca planted seems to have actually increased, largely shifting to more remote areas or into neighboring countries.

Interdiction is carried out primarily by aerial and naval armed forces patrolling known trafficking zones. From South America to the United States most drugs traverse either the Caribbean Sea or the Eastern Pacific, usually in "go-fast" boats that carry drug cargos and engines and little else.

Investigation on drug trafficking often begins with the recording of unusually frequent deaths by overdose, monitoring financial flows of suspected traffickers, or by finding concrete elements while inspecting for other purposes. For example, a person pulled over for traffic violations may have illicit drugs in his or her vehicle, thus leading to an arrest and/or investigation of the source of the materials. The United States federal government has placed a premium on disrupting the large drug trafficking organizations that move narcotics into and around the United States, while state and local law enforcement focus on disrupting street-level drug dealing gangs.

Drug control strategy

Present drug control efforts utilise several techniques to achieve their goals of eliminating recreational drug use:

  • Disrupting the market for drugs
  • Prevention efforts that rely on community activism, public information campaigns to educate the public on the potential dangers of drug use
  • Law-enforcement efforts against current users, through medical screenings, workplace testing and Drug Courts
  • Law-enforcement efforts against elements of the supply chain, through surveillance and undercover work
  • Providing effective and targeted substance abuse treatment to dependent users

References

  1. ^ Keel, Robert. "Drug Law Timeline, Significant Events in the History of our Drug Laws". Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Retrieved 2007-04-24. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ STATEMENT OF H. J. ANSLINGER
  3. ^ STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM C. WOODWARD
  4. ^ http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/472/2008_federal_drug_control_budget_good_bad_ugly
  5. ^ Steeds meer tieners zoeken hulp voor wietverslaving
  1. Eva Bertram, ed., Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial, University of California Press, 1996, ISBN 0-520-20309-7.
  2. James P. Gray, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs Temple University Press, 2001, ISBN 1-56639-859-2.
  3. Richard Lawrence Miller, Drug Warriors and Their Prey, Praeger, 1996, ISBN 0-275-95042-5.
  4. Don Baum, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, Little Brown & Co., 1996, ISBN 0-316-08412-3.
  5. Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Lawrence Hill Books, 1991, ISBN 1-55652-126-X.
  6. Clarence Lusane and Dennis Desmond, Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the War on Drugs, South End Press, 1991, ISBN 0-89608-411-6.
  7. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombian Survey, June 2005.
  8. Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, March 2004.
  9. David F. Musto, The American Disease, The Origins of Narcotics Controls, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973, p. 43

See also

Academic articles

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drug_prohibition&oldid=173660873"