The Criminalization of Drug Use - Essay Example

? Drugs & Human Behavior Husak, Douglas N. “The Criminalization of Drug Use.” Sociological Forum, Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2003. Drugs have been a part of human life from time immemorial. For just as long, there have been rules regulating their use and punishing people for using certain types and certain amounts. In the United States today, drug use has serious social consequences that cannot be underestimated. Nevertheless, the response to drug use—criminalization—and the resulting imprisonment of millions of people at a huge cost seems unsustainable. That is the basic point of Douglas Husak in this article. Husak's background is in the philosophy of law. He wants to examine the reasons why drug use is criminalized and why society attaches such high punitive measures to it. He believes that criminalization is counterproductive and that we should move on from it towards something more equitable. He feels that it provides no real benefit and in fact produces harm. He asks a number of important questions in the course of the article and examines the nature of the debate. In the end, he concludes that drug use should not be criminalized and that drug users should be left to their own devices unless they commit a serious crime. Incarceration only makes their problems worse while costing society massive amounts of money. The author's thinking on this subject is logical and reasonable. He breaks down the debate and examines the premises that both sides use to make their point. Importantly, he suggests that those who support the status quo should have to present evidence that it is working. The burden is not merely on those who oppose the current laws. The author tries to understand why alcohol and tobacco are not banned, while marijuana is, and concludes that there is a dissonance in the current policy. Only the fact that alcohol and tobacco are backed by big businesses prevents them from being banned based on the same logic as the criminalization of marijuana. He explores a number of gaps in the reasoning of those who support the continued criminalization of drugs. He focuses on the issue of justice, which is an important foundation for all law. He explains how this idea can be lost in a swirling debate based on a cost-benefit analysis: “Considerations of justice will probably seem unimportant if we are fixated on objectives. Justice should not be conceptualized as a goal our policies should try to achieve, but as a constraint that limits what we are allowed to do in pursuing these objectives. In other words, justice rules out some strategies that we otherwise would be permitted to adopt in trying to attain our ends” (505). Husak does not spend much time exploring flaws in his argument. His argument is more or less sound, although his conclusion is a little too strongly worded. The idea of mental health courts is a good one. Most proponents of criminalizing drugs would argue that drugs are remarkably dangerous and cause harm. They are highly addictive and therefore cause a great deal of crime. They are not something we want more of; they are something we want less of. These ideas are absent from Husak's article. Ideally, the author would have spent more time discussing drug courts. He does say in his conclusion: Drug courts impress both conservatives and liberals. Admittedly, these courts represent an improvement over traditional criminal courts; most drug users would prefer treatment to incarceration. But this concession provides faint praise for the drug court movement. Virtually anything is preferable to incarceration (513). He then concludes by saying that drugs should be legalized and there should be no requirement to go to a drug court. Of course, he is entitled to this opinion, but it would have been better to spend more time on this issue. These courts represent an effective middle ground in this polarizing debate. They have proven to be fairly successful in reducing crime rates and getting people sober. There can be little doubt that drug use leads to additional criminal behavior—that is part of the reason drugs cause such harm. Getting users into a system that can help cure them can only be a good thing. More research or explanation of these courts would have been useful. The author of this paper does not do much real research. He is reviewing two books about drug policy and using information from them and from other sources to support his hypothesis that drugs should be legalized because the current law is unjust and there are too many hypocrisies involved. There were no real ethical issues involved in this article since it wasn't a real piece of research. There are impressionable academics out there who might be overly influenced by the author's strident view of drug policy. That is an ethical dimension that perhaps should have been more deeply considered by the author. Drugs are a serious problem in our society. The author makes some good points about criminalization and its massive costs. It is clear that the status quo is not especially effective. It imprisons millions of addicts and provides little to no treatment for them. It is hard to suggest that it is in any way just. Nevertheless, simple legalization may be a bridge too far. What we need is a more compassionate system that will recognize illness and try to treat people who can be treated. Drugs lead to crime, and to simply legalize them would not be an effective measure at reducing crime. The fact that the author spends so little time discussing opposing arguments suggest that there is a kind of bias against those who disagree with him. He makes his own argument strongly while largely ignoring the body of evidence that is lined up against him. There is nothing wrong with this in theory, but it does make his overall argument less effective. Overall, this is an interesting and impassioned piece. The author makes his case in a considered manner and is clearly an intelligent person. However, he fails to take into account some of the potential results of his policy and the way the criminal justice system would change on account of his ideas. The status quo is not acceptable, but the author's prescription is excessive. We need to take baby steps towards reforming American drug policy. Read More