Why is There a 'War on Drugs'?
by Dave Haans
[f--oo--y] at [io.org]
or...
[gsoc 07] at [epas.utoronto.ca]
Fall, 1994
Note: This essay was written for a graduate level course called "Sociology
of Addiciton" at the University of Toronto. The professor of the course was
Patricia Erickson (see the Bibliography). It was completed on December 23,
1994. You may distribute this document freely, however please do not change
it in any way. Thanks.
INTRODUCTION
To ask the question "why is there a 'War on Drugs'?' must seem
to some to be a bit like asking 'why are there laws against
murder?' Such a large amount of popular wisdom exists to
support an effort to stop the use, trafficking and production of
illicit drugs that such a question must be at best facetious.
Images of the drug war, pouring forth across media from the
radio to popular movies, convey a sense of evil and brutality
that beckons for immediate, and brutal, retaliation. Once the
question is asked, however, the onus is immediately on the one
asking the question to provide evidence that is contrary to the
accepted norm. This person who dares ask the question, even if
s/he is sincere and honest, may quickly find that they are
clearly outside of the 'norm' in society, and that few people
will bother to help them in answering their own question. The
question, then, carries with it a great weight, and often times
remains unasked, both at the public and governmental levels.
It is the question 'why', however, that will be the purpose of
this paper, with regards to the War on Drugs. Answering this
question will of course necessitate using all of the tools
currently used to define, describe and evaluate the War on
Drugs. For example, it will have to be shown that there
actually is a War on Drugs; that legislation has been enacted
that makes the War on Drugs a reality; that the War on Drugs is
not a necessary fact of legal or social life in this country;
and that plausible alternatives have been largely ignored. What
will be of ultimate interest, however, is why, given the
realities of its social uselessness, there is a War on Drugs.
IS THERE A 'WAR ON DRUGS'?
The American Experience
Most of our Canadian conceptions of the War on Drugs are the
result of the American War on Drugs. Ronald and Nancy Reagan's
1986 'declaration' of the War on Drugs mixed metaphors of war,
illness, crusades and religious righteousness in order to
galvanize a nation into action against illicit drugs. George
Bush, carrying the same theme, further made the issue both a
domestic and international one (Elwood, 1994). While this
reaction to the perceived problem of drugs typifies the most
recent reaction to illicit drug use, it is certainly not the
product of the 1980's.
In early 20th Century America, international concern over opium
trading was reflected by the Unites States legislating the
Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, which put in place a taxation on
the trade of opium into the U.S. (Brecher, 1972). Aside from
its rather benign face, the Harrison Act contained a clause that
law enforcement officials viewed as being justification for the
arrest and imprisonment of physicians who prescribed opiates to
their patients. This led to the almost overnight creation of a
black market, and caused those addicted to opiates to reduce
their quality of life substantially in order to maintain their
addiction. It is this affiliation with a criminal element which
allowed for more punitive laws to be put in place, in the
mistaken belief that drug use led to crime. By many accounts,
even of the time, the laws and not the drugs themselves, forced
many addicted individuals to turn to crime to maintain their
addictions (Brecher, 1972).
The Canadian Experience
In Canada, a similar scenario had unfolded parallel (and
previous) to the American experience. Concern over the
international trade of opium had made necessary the first of the
anti-opium legislation that sought to criminalize its use and
movement outright. The result was the Opium Act of 1908, and
the Opium and Drug Act of 1911 (Giffen, Endicott and Lambert,
1991). These acts sought to at first reduce, then eliminate
opium traffic inside Canada, in order to complement efforts to
stop international trading in this substance. As Giffen, et al
(1991) describe, the 1911 Act was influenced by far more than
simply a wish to help China with its opium problem -- at the
time, a strong moralistic tide was washing over the country, and
opium and a host of other drugs were blamed for crime,
immorality and the like. More importantly, hostility towards
the Chinese which manifested itself in the 1907 anti-Asiatic
demonstration, and further publicity about Chinese opium use,
led to the creation of the beliefs of extreme negative effects
of opium (p. 53).
In 1986, just two days after President and Mrs. Reagan's
declaration of war on drugs, Prime Minister Mulroney deviated
from a prepared speech to announce that "drug abuse has become
an epidemic that undermines our economic as well as our social
fabric" (Erickson, 1992, p. 248). However, Prime Minister
Mulroney neither said this in a dramatic address to Canada's
public, nor further elaborated on his remark. While his remark
resulted in the creation of "Canada's Drug Strategy", by most
accounts very little has changed with respect to the Federal
Government's treatment illicit drugs (Fischer, 1994; Erickson,
1992).
Does This Constitute a 'Drug War'?
In early United States and Canada, then, the factors which
brought about prohibition of illicit drugs were a concern with
international opium trade to China (and, seemingly, how that
trade could be replaced with trade in U.S. and Canadian
products), an increasingly racist (and very public) attitude
toward immigrants from the Pacific Rim, and a new moralistic
tide sweeping both countries. The effects of these factors was
prohibition of most psychoactive drugs (save for alcohol and
tobacco), and almost immediate police involvement in the control
of the newly-illicit drugs.
Whether this constitutes a "drug war" is debatable. On one
hand, there seems to be no explicit declaration of war against
drugs to be found at the turn of the century. On the other
hand, there are many facets of what Bruce Alexander (1990) calls
"warlike aspects of current drug-control policy" (p. 50). For
example, Alexander writes that a War on Drugs may be defined by
its war language, violent imagery, legal violence, illegal
police violence, spying, and its casualties. A closer look at
the evidence available from the era of early illicit drug
prohibition satisfies some of these requirements. For example,
public action against drugs such as cocaine in 1910-11 was
defined as a "fight" against cocaine, and cocaine users were
typified as "fiends in human guise" (Giffen et al, 1991, p. 83).
As well, the Opium and Drug Act of 1911 set down several
measures that were very much war-like. First, the police were
given extensive powers which allowed them to seize, confiscate,
and destroy drugs (Giffen, et al, 1991, p. 80). The 1911 Act
also shifted the burden of proof from the police to the
defendant, forcing the charged to prove that any illicit drugs
seized were for scientific or medical purposes. Finally, the
1911 Act closed off the chance for any appeal on the grounds of
technicalities (Giffen, et al, 1991).
The casualties in the early War on Drugs were mainly Chinese
labourers who had legally entered the country to peaceably work
for wages that could not have been earned in their own country.
The actual use of the 1911 act was to imprison, and later (after
a 1922 amendment) deport Chinese opium users, until a
diminishing number of Chinese targets for the illicit drug laws
caused a newer focus on Caucasian drug users (Giffen, et al,
1991, p. 97).
Back to the Present
Alexander (1990) argues that the whole of the illicit drug laws
set the stage for an all-out war on drugs, even if the Canadian
public is not as aware of the situation as the American public
is. Even though no dramatic pronouncement of a drug war in
Canada was ever made, Canadian drug laws reflect a War Measures
mentality which reduces the legal rights of the accused, and
strengthens the power, scope and role of the police forces. For
example, police have almost unrestricted powers of search and
seizure in drug cases (Alexander, 1990, p. 36). Police also
have the right to break into premises, destroy any property
therein, "manhandle and beat the occupants, and to punch and
choke people who are suspected of trying to swallow drugs"
(Alexander, 1990, p. 36). These rights of the police, which
clearly come at the expense of the rights of the individual, are
effected only when illicit drugs are, or are suspected of being,
involved.
A drug war also contains language that clearly sets the stage
for the public's acceptance of these types of power. This is
certainly not a new turn of events -- since the very beginning
of drug prohibition, drugs were associated with words and
phrases that were meant to elicit visions of the public
combating "evil imported from the Orient", the "curse of
cocaine" (Giffen et al, p. 82, p. 84) and even "the downfall of
the white race [by the Chinese]" (Alexander, p. 31). President
Reagan's drug war declaration conveyed an image of illicit drugs
"menacing our society" and "threatening our values and
undercutting our institutions" and "threat[ening] ... our
national security" (Reagan, 1986, pp. 1184-1186). These
statements elicit images of an all-out attack on the United
States by a foreign power. Prime Minister Mulroney echoed very
much these same sentiments with regard to Canada two days later.
Even today, utterances such as cocaine being "a substantial
evil in our society ... It ruins lives and destroys families and
is directly responsible for the commission of other crimes,"
(Oakes, 1994a, p. A8) and "cocaine is undoubtedly an insidious
and dangerous drug which undermines the very fabric of our
society" (Oakes, 1994b, p. A11) can be found in the daily
newspaper.
Obviously, with these images firmly implanted in the psyche of
a nation, any steps taken to eradicate the 'enemy' will be met
with little resistance. Any resistance that is proffered is
bound to be met with a uninformed retort such as this: "I think
half the children born are put to death by the sale of these
cordials and yet some gentlemen say the law is too strict"
(Senate Debates, Canada, 1910-1911, italics mine).
Yes, Virginia, There is a 'War on Drugs'
This discussion presented in the previous section did not touch
upon images in the modern media of an inner-city battleground,
movie images of evil organized drug rings or the tendency of the
media to report the government's, rather than researchers' views
on the drugs, both licit and illicit. However, the intent in
the previous section was to show that the governments in both
Canada and the United States have waged a war on drugs that has
existed, largely unabated, for over 80 years. The next two
sections will focus on whether or not that war is justified, and
whether alternatives could be used.
IS THE 'WAR ON DRUGS' JUSTIFIED?
In the Persian Gulf War that pitted a number of countries
against Iraq, President Bush went to lengths to ensure that
people believed that a war against Iraq was indeed a 'just' war.
However, many researchers, asking whether the war on drugs is
justified, have come to the conclusion that this particular war
is not (see Alexander, 1990, pp. xi-xii for a list of dissenters
from the government's position). Further, there seems to be no
effort on the part of the Canadian Government to evaluate
whether the War on Drugs is necessary. The recent tabling of
Bill C-7, which seeks harsher penalties for illicit drug users
and sellers, overshadows any effort on the part of the
Government to seek a re-evaluation of the effects of the laws on
those affected by them. Even though a large number of groups
have voiced their concerns regarding Bill C-7 (Erickson and
Smart, 1994), the Bill is presently in its third reading, and
stands a fair chance of being passed. The Bill also largely
goes against Canada's Drug Strategy, a program that was
initiated after Prime Minister Mulroney's off-hand comment on
the 'problem' of illicit drugs in Canada. Canada's Drug
Strategy has an explicit 'harm reduction' emphasis (see the
section entitled "Harm Reduction as an Alternative to the War on
Drugs", below) that was to guide Canada's drug policy (Fischer,
1994).
This being the case, it is now the task of this paper to
explore the drug problem, and to ascertain whether there really
needs to be a drug war. This question is important because one
of the main assumptions of a War on Drugs is that illicit drugs
do so much harm that they must be outlawed. As we shall see,
this is largely a fallacy, and the presence of a War on Drugs in
the face of the facts of the consequences of illicit drugs is
made even more ironic by the Government's long-standing
commitment to its prohibitionary policies.
Back to the Beginning
The previous section of this paper showed that the early drug
laws in Canada formed the basis for a long-standing
prohibitionary approach to the use and trafficking of opium.
Not discussed at length however, were the social conditions that
preceded these laws. It is useful to describe these social
conditions, and in doing so the gulf between drug laws and the
reality of the effects of the drugs in question can be
illuminated.
In the latter half of the 19th Century, Canadian industrialists
on the West Coast encouraged immigration of Chinese labourers,
mainly because they were willing to work for less than their
Caucasian counterparts (Alexander, 1990, p. 30), and they were
seen as being "conscientious, thrifty, and law-abiding" (Solomon
and Green, 1988, p. 89). The Chinese also brought with them the
habit of smoking opium (Boyd, 1982). This remained a non-issue
with most people, until Chinese immigration was seen to be
threatening the livelihood of white workers (Boyd, 1982), who
were feeling the effects of decline in railway employment and
the gold rush in British Columbia (Solomon and Green, 1988).
This sentiment came to a peak in September of 1907, when
anti-Asian feeling resulted in the Anti-Asiatic riot in
Vancouver's Chinatown (Alexander, 1990, p. 30).
After being sent to British Columbia to investigate claims for
damage incurred by several Asians in the riot, then Deputy
Minister of Labour Mackenzie King was 'shocked' to find that a
Chinese opium industry was in place. He recommended in his
official report that this trade, which was not subject to taxes,
be immediately halted (Solomon and Green, 1988, p. 91). In
1908, the Opium Act was made into law, and for the first time
the sale, importation and manufacture of opium was prohibited
(Alexander, 1990).
The social backdrop of this period was increasing anti-Asiatic
sentiment, and the fear that Asians were likely to influence
Caucasians to use opium. At this time, a mythology was being
created which helped to set the tone for further legislation.
Opium itself seemed not to be the problem, but opium smoking was
seen to "exemplify the alien, inferior and unassimilable nature
of the Chinese" (Giffen et al, 1991, p. 57). The prevailing
fear was not of opium itself, but of whites being encouraged by
the Chinese to use opium. Solomon and Green add that the
success of this law, and the failure of other laws that sought
to suppress alcohol, tobacco and other substances at the time,
was due to the fact that (p. 88):
it was directed against Chinese opium smokers and Chinese
opium factories, but at the same time posed no threat to the
larger number of predominantly middle-class and middle-aged
Caucasian users who were addicted to the products of the
established pharmaceutical industry
With an emphasis on racial factors, and a complete mythology
regarding the social effects of opium, the stage was set for
newer and more punitive laws regarding opium and other drugs,
such as morphine, heroin and cocaine.
In the next number of years, culminating in the 1929 Opium and
Narcotic Drug Act, Canada saw a shift in its policies. Solomon
and Green (1988) write of how the newly created Department of
Health was given responsibility for the supervision of Canada's
Federal drug laws, through the creation of the Narcotics
Division (p. 97). At the same time, the RCMP was founded, and
charged with the execution of Federal laws. The RCMP's 'raison
d'etre' soon became the enforcement of drug laws, and was a great
influence on the Narcotics Division, which found little
resistance when requesting special powers be given to the RCMP
to penalize drug users and traffickers. These special powers
included police officers being able to search dwellings without
a warrant, the onus on the defendant to prove s/he had no
knowledge, consent, or authority in possession cases, and the
police being able to prosecute doctors who were prescribing
maintenance doses to addicts. Penalties were stiffened to
include whipping, and deportation of immigrants who had been
charged and had served their sentences.
During this time, warnings about the perils of drug use
abounded. The anti-Asiatic campaign was also on an up-swing.
In 1922, a highly influential and inflammatory book was
published. It was written by Emily Murphy, an early feminist
and jurist. Through it, Mrs. Murphy gave "a thorough
introduction to the War on Drugs mentality in its modern form"
(Alexander, 1990. p. 31). Included were racist epithets, and an
image of the drug 'addict' (all illicit drug users were addicts,
in Mrs. Murphy's opinion) that was so evil and depraved that
s/he begged for swift and harsh discipline.
In the 1920s then, the RCMP and the courts were given enormous
powers to stop the 'menace' of drugs. However, by the end of
the decade, convictions had fallen rapidly, mainly due to the
fact that the majority of Chinese drug offenders had either died
out or been deported (Solomon and Green, 1988, p. 99). The
image of the drug user had changed from a morally weak
individual to that of a "fiendish criminal, obsessed with the
need to addict others and motivated by lust and greed" (Solomon
and Green, 1988, p. 100). This set the stage for continued
criminal sanctions for the rest of the century.
Rather than a focus on race, which typified early anti-drug
measures, the focus today is on moral, social, economic and
health concerns (Alexander, 1990, p. 33). However, this change
in emphasis does not make the War on Drugs more justifiable by
any means. Rather, it simply reflects a change in who is to be
charged with drug offences.
The Effects of Illicit Drugs
The personae of the War on Drugs is a frantic one. With images
of the drug user as criminal, the police being given massive
powers, a huge criminal network in place to supply illicit drugs
to an unwitting populace, and 'crack babies' being born at the
mercy of their delinquent mothers, one is hard pressed to find
evidence in the popular media that would suggest that the War on
Drugs doesn't need to exist. At the very base of the drug war
is the assumption that illicit drugs do social and medical harm,
and they must be stopped at any cost. It is this assumption
which will be examined next.
Opium and Related Drugs
Opium was the first drug to be made illicit in Canada, largely
due to anti-Asian sentiment. However, even at the time, there
were questions as to the medical effects of the drug. During
Senate debate on the 1908 Opium Act, Dr. Joseph Sullivan was the
only person to question its alleged effects. In part, he stated:
I fail to find in statistics anything about the injurious
effect of Opium on the Chinese. Above all things, the Chinese
having this habit ought to be treated with a great deal of
consideration (quoted in Giffen, et al, 1990, p. 72)
Dr. Sullivan's remark is borne out by the fact that, aside from
physical addiction often present in continual users of opiates,
there are no serious side effects of the continued use of them.
Health and Welfare Canada's (1989) "Licit and Illicit Drugs in
Canada" reveals that (p. 11):
Despite media dramatizations of heroin withdrawal, cessation
is rarely fatal and is similar to a bad case of influenza.
Observations of heroin-addicted individuals who have been
maintained on daily doses under medical supervision show no
significant psychological or physical negative effects from the
drug. However, many adverse effects of heroin use are related
to the addiction lifestyle and methods of drug administration.
Marijuana
Popular reports of the effects of other drugs also do not hold
up when examined more closely. Marijuana was thought by Mrs.
Murphy to drive its users insane, make them become "raving
maniacs", and lead them to a premature death (Solomon, Single
and Erickson, 1988, p. 370). However, if this were true,
adverse psychological effects would be well known by now.
Instead, there have been few cases of patients reporting to
treatment facilities with these kinds of effects. Health and
Welfare Canada seems to indicate that this is surprising, given
the high rates of usage in some populations (1989, p. 10).
Cocaine
Cocaine is another drug that was (and is) widely reported to
have severe effects on the individual. While lethal in very
high doses, cocaine actually is reasonably safe in moderate
doses (Alexander, 1990, p. 202-203). Similarly, crack cocaine's
label as "the most highly addictive form of all drugs ever known
in history" has been countered with research reports that more
or less simply report that "cocaine does not produce physical
dependence" (Akers, 1991, pp. 783-784).
This list could be extended, but the point can be summed up by
stating that (as Alexander (1990) does) "a large body of careful
research shows that recreational use of illicit drugs, including
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, does not lead to addiction or
other harm for the majority of users" (p. 64). But what of the
other popular edict of the anti-drug organizations and police
and Presidents Reagan and Bush and Prime Minister Mulroney,
etc., which states that there is nothing less than an epidemic
of illicit drug use, which tears at the very fabric of society?
The final section of this consideration of whether or not a war
on drugs is justified will focus on the proportion of people in
our society which actually use drugs, and what the effects of
this use actually are.
Use of Illicit Drugs
Some of the best trend data on drug use come from the Addiction
Research Foundation, which has surveyed self-reported drug use
among Ontario students since 1968, and Ontario adults since
1977. These surveys have been conducted once very two years in
the case of students, and once every three years in the case of
adults (Smart and Adlaf, 1990). In general, the use of drugs
has dramatically declined among both students and adults. With
respect to cannabis, the percentage of students who reported
using the drug at least once in the previous year peaked in 1979
at a rate of 31.7%, and then fell gradually to a low of 11.7% in
1991. Students' use of heroin in the previous year had peaked
in 1979 at 2.3%, then fell to 1% in 1991. Following the same
trend, use of cocaine for students peaked at 5.1% in 1979, then
gradually fell to 1.6% in 1991 (Smart, Adlaf and Walsh, 1991, p.
13).
For adults, the trends have been somewhat similar, however the
peak years for use in the previous year come somewhat later
(possibly because the students who continued using were now
classified as 'adults', in other words, a cohort effect was
observed). The peak year for cannabis use in the previous year
for Ontario adults was 1984, with a percentage of 11.2% adults
reporting the use of cannabis at least once. This percentage
fell to 6.8% in 1991. With respect to cocaine, use rates
remained relatively constant, with between 1.7 (1984) and 2.1%
(1989) of adults reporting having used cocaine in the previous
year (Adlaf, Smart and Canale, 1991, p. 7).
Although self-reported rates are not always the most reliable
indicator of drug use (and with respect to the above studies, do
not include teenagers outside of the education system), these
data show that at least in Ontario, the vast majority of
students and adults are non-users of marijuana, cocaine and
heroin.
Taking a national perspective, we find that the percentage of
those individuals in Canada fifteen years of age or older that
have never used marijuana or hashish is 80%. For cocaine, the
percentage of people who have never used is 97% (Single,
Williams and McKenzie, 1994, p. 113).
These data do not support in any way the claims made by Prime
Minister Mulroney two days after President Reagan declared the
American War on Drugs. If drugs had become an "epidemic" in
Canada in 1986, use rates certainly do not reflect this. As for
Prime Minister Mulroney's comment that drug use was eroding the
social and economic fabric of the country also bears closer
scrutiny, although it should be noted that it is impossible to
define what, exactly, Prime Minister Mulroney meant by this
comment. The focus of the next section of this paper, however,
will be a discussion of the effects of drugs on people who use
them. This focus will not be a pharmacological one, but a
social one, taking into account a more important effect of drug
use--the social sanctions that accompany those who decide to use
illicit drugs.
The Effects of the War on Drugs
Anti-drug sentiment comes complete with a whole selection of
'facts' and 'figures' which support the 'fact' that drug use
causes severe social upheaval. This is evidenced by many of the
previously quoted remarks of even well-intentioned groups and
individuals who fear that the use of drugs has severe social,
economic and psychological effects on the individual, those
around the individual, and society in general. While this may
be the popular response to the problems of drug use, there is
much more evidence to support the view that anti-drug
legislation itself is the cause of the plight of drug users, and
not the other way around.
Brecher (1972) is certainly one of the first documenters of the
history of drug legislation to espouse this view, and may in
fact have been one of the creators of a paradigm shift in drug
research that has carried through to this day. In Licit &
Illicit Drugs, Brecher illustrates the history of all types of
licit and illicit drugs, and documents anti-drug legislation in
the United States and Canada. The first effects of the early
narcotic legislation were almost immediate; Brecher writes that
the result of these laws was that "the door was opened wide to
adulterated, contaminated and misbranded narcotics of all kinds"
(p. 47). Previously law-abiding addicts were forced to turn to
the black market in order to secure their maintenance doses of
these drugs. Just six weeks after the passage of the 1914
Harrison Act in the United States, Brecher quotes an editor in
the New York Medical Journal as writing that the immediate
effect was seen in the flocking of drug users to hospitals and
sanitoriums, an increase in violence due to addicts looking to
obtain drugs (some in a delirious state due to withdrawal), and
that time would show further effects, in the failure of
promising careers, the disruption of families, the commission of
crimes, and the influx into hospitals of those who would have
otherwise led normal lives (p. 50).
In Canada, predictably, anti-opium legislation also resulted in
the creation of covert smuggling operations, which resulted in
the price of opium rising dramatically. In a society founded
upon capitalist principles, drug traffickers sprang up to reap
the monetary rewards of the early opium legislation. As a
result, enforcement of the opium laws became more zealous, which
increased the profitability of the black market trade, which
then increased the likelihood that the trade would continue
(Giffen, et al, 1991, p. 117). In later years, morphine and
heroin were to replace opium, mainly because they were easier to
conceal due to the fact that they are more powerful, and take up
less space. The opium users, in order to maintain their
addictions, had to intermingle with and develop contacts with
the criminal world (Giffen, et al, 1991, p. 118).
Before opium legislation, users could carry on useful,
prosperous lives (as many Chinese did at the turn of the
century), while addicted to opium. After anti-opium
legislation, however, irresistible profits were to be made on
the black market, causing users to be involved in the same
violence, crime and corruption that typifies accounts of the
illegal drug trade today. Persistent calls for harsher
legislation were made because often, the defenders of these laws
mistook "the violent side-effects of prohibition for the effects
of the drugs themselves" (Alexander, 1990, p. 60).
This pattern of anti-drug laws and sustained attainability of
drugs through the black market typifies the 20th century
experience with drug prohibition. These laws also have other
consequences that are directly related to the criminalization of
drug use in modern times. These consequences form the main part
of the public image of the drug user, and are used to further
support the notion that tougher laws and police powers are
needed. Erickson (1993) summarizes several finding of
researchers who have studied this problem in relation to opiates
(p. 1169):
Forced to obtain opiates illegally and at a much inflated
price, addicts/users formed a deviant and sometimes criminal
subculture; money went to purchase drugs rather than to food and
personal hygiene; sharing and using dirty needles led to high
rates of infection with diseases such as hepatitis; contaminated
drugs and unknown potency contributed to high morbidity and
mortality; criminalization further reduced legitimate economic
opportunities.
Of course, not all illicit drug use in our society is of
opiates, nor of an addictive nature. Even with illicit drugs
commonly thought of as being non-addictive, however, the law has
effects on the user that seem to overshadow the relatively
harmless direct consequences of the actual use. The
consequences of the law regarding marijuana (which in Canada
today can be as severe as those applied in cases of opiates and
cocaine) manifest themselves in reduced opportunities for
employment (Erickson and Goodstadt, 1979), the offender wishing
to remain more secretive to both his or her family, and
disrespect for cannabis laws (Erickson and Murray, 1986). The
stigmatizing effect of even the lightest of punishments on the
'cannabis criminal' have implications, therefore, on the user's
self-image and the user's place in society, and are largely an
unintended effect of the law.
An Answer to The Question
The genesis of anti-drug legislation, as presented above, was
racist attitudes towards the Chinese labourers who were seen to
be a threat to the Caucasian work force. The focus in those
times was not on the effects of the drugs themselves, as there
was, and is, ample evidence to support the theory that illicit
drugs are not generally harmful in and of themselves. Nor, as
is frequently argued, are there expansive social consequences
arising from the use of these drugs. If anything, the market in
illicit drugs benefits the police by keeping them busy, and
allowing an easy outlet for their influence in anti-drug laws.
As for an epidemic in drug use, there seems to be few statistics
to substantiate even a minor threat to the health of Canadians
based upon the numbers of Canadians who do use illicit drugs.
Finally, the major negative impact of drugs on their users is
the result of the drug laws themselves, and not drugs per se.
In short, the War on Drugs is in no way justified by any
evidence gathered to date.
As will be discussed below, there are alternatives to the War
on Drugs. In particular, a model of 'harm reduction' will be
examined closely, and the evidence which would support an effort
of this type presented. As well, 'Canada's Drug Strategy', a
program based on harm reduction principles and announced in
1987, will be critiqued.
HARM REDUCTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE WAR ON DRUGS
Harm reduction is a broad classification of proposals which
shift the focus from prohibiting the use of drugs to dealing
with the problems associated with drug use. As discussed
earlier, the War on Drugs has brought about its own set of
problems associated with drug use. Therefore, a successful
program of harm reduction would also have to deal with the
problems of the War on Drugs as well (Nadelmann, 1994, p. 35).
True harm reduction approaches were developed fairly recently
through programs in the Netherlands, the U.K. and Australia (Des
Jarlais and Friedman, 1994). The focus of harm reduction is on
reducing the problems associated with drug use on a community
and individual level, rather than an effort to prohibit drug use
at a societal level. Harm reduction also focuses on the
realistically attainable goals of reducing the negative
consequences of drug use, such as the supplying of clean
equipment to injection drug users (IDUs) in order to reduce the
prevalence of AIDS and HIV infection in the IDU population. It
is these immediately 'treatable' aspects of drug use which are
targeted first, so that the use of drugs can be as risk-free as
possible. A further consideration is the reduction of drug use,
although abstinence is only an option when it would be clearly
appropriate (Riley, 1994, p. 1).
Clearly then, there is a stark contrast between harm reduction
and prohibition as models of dealing with drug use. Harm
reduction assumes that there are effects of drug use that can
benefit the user (as in the case of life-saving medication), and
that there are also harmful and even neutral effects. Harm
reduction offers a pragmatic means for the analysis of whether
these effects are harmful or not (Riley, 1994, p. 1), a far cry
from prohibitionist models, which assume that all illicit drug
use is inherently harmful. Also, the emphasis is not on drug
use per se (as in the prohibitionist model), but solely on the
negative consequences of such use.
The concept of harm reduction is not entirely new, however. It
can be traced back to the 'British System', which emerged in
answer to a set of recommendations by the Rolleston Committee
which was formed in the 1920s in the U.K. (Riley, 1994, p. 1).
The committee argued that in certain cases "maintenance on drugs
may be necessary to help drug abusers lead useful lives" (Riley,
1994, p. 1). The modern-day model for the harm reduction
approach is located in Merseyside, near Liverpool. In response
to the rising use of drugs such as heroin in the early 1980s,
the Merseyside clinics, along with doctors, pharmacists and the
police worked together to establish a harm-reduction model.
Their efforts concentrate on treating users on an individual
basis, supplying them with either the drugs they needed or
effective substitutes, and exchanging syringes, all of which may
help the user to lead more healthy, productive and fulfilling
life (Riley, 1994).
The effects on the social problems in Merseyside as a result of
the harm reduction program there have been encouraging. Riley
(1994) writes that of all the English Regions, Merseyside had
the lowest rate of HIV-positive IDUs, and the Merseyside police
were the only force in 1990 and 1991 to register a decrease in
crime rates (p. 5). The success of Merseyside is partly due to
the fact that it is a collaborative effort between clinicians,
police, pharmacists and doctors. Another factor which sets
Merseyside's harm reduction strategy apart from other
prohibitionary models is the fact that it is community based,
and not a set of rules imposed from the government at the
Federal level (as prohibitionary models are). Reducing harm in
one's own community gives immediate and tangible benefits that
can be appreciated by all concerned. This helps to ensure the
continuation of the program which gives those benefits, and
encourages the participation of people who enjoy its benefits.
Several examples of a harm reduction approach exist in Canada
as well, especially with reference to alcohol. Single (1994)
writes that the Alberta Liquor Control Board allowed for the
special early opening of a downtown Edmonton liquor store, in
order to allow for a supply of potable alcohol to Skid-row
inebriates who were previously using other substances, such as
shoe polish, which were easily attainable in the morning (pp.
2-3). Other programmes informed by the harm reduction model are
available, and include such things as special training to owners
and employees of bars and taverns that allow them to encourage
moderation, designated driver programs, the promotion of 'light'
beers and wines (Single, 1994), and making available information
regarding the alcohol content of different beverages (Riley,
1994). Also, more than 30 needle exchange programs have been
run in several major Canadian cities, which help to reduce the
spread of AIDS through the use of dirty needles and works
(Riley, 1994).
Unfortunately, it is the spread of AIDS that is the driving
force behind many harm reduction programs, such as needle
exchanges. In the United States, over one-third of all AIDS
cases are related to injection drug use (Des Jarlais and
Friedman, 1994, p. 82). IDU is strongly associated with AIDS
because the relatively easy transmission path from one user to
another when needles and other injecting equipment (such as
cotton, and the water used to clean the equipment) are shared.
Also at risk are the partners of injection drug users, even when
the partner is a non-user.
The problem exists because many injection drug users find
obtaining clean needles and other 'works' impossible, difficult
or inconvenient. In New York, where needle exchange programs
are illegal, the incidence of HIV (the retrovirus thought to
cause AIDS) among injection drug users is approximately 60 per
cent (Riley, 1994). Although it is presently difficult to find
strong evidence that needle exchange programs help to prevent
AIDS and HIV because of the time lag between infection and
detection, researchers point to percentage of IDU related AIDS
in cities such as New York, which have not instituted such
programs (Riley, 1994). As well, those cities that responded
early to the spread of AIDS and HIV show IDU related cases to be
much lower than those that didn't (Des Jarlais and Friedman,
1994).
The harm reduction model, then, is an effective answer to
controlling the problems associated with drug use. The emphasis
on getting many different members of the community involved
helps to give those people the feeling that they are helping to
solve a serious problem, which benefits them and the community.
The objective standpoint offered by the harm reduction model is
helpful in getting beyond the rhetoric of the War on Drugs as
well, since harm reduction focuses on objective (and
non-judgmental) information about drugs and their effects
(Riley, 1994, p. 11). The harm reduction model reduces the
conflict between the drug user and the community, by trying to
erase the boundaries between these two groups, and by getting
the drug user to be more a part of the community.
Canada's Drug Strategy -- Kinder, Gentler Repression
The examples of harm reduction shown above are primarily
community based. As a result of Prime Minister Mulroney's
aforementioned comment, a national strategy was announced in
1987, which was termed "Canada's Drug Strategy" (Erickson,
1992). Canada's Drug Strategy has an explicit harm reduction
emphasis, and an emphasis on reducing drug-related harm to
individuals and communities (Fischer, 1994, p. 71). The
Strategy allocated the sum of $210 million in its first five
years (and an additional $270 million in 1992) mainly to the
prevention and treatment of drug use, while 30 per cent of this
money was intended for the traditional area of law enforcement
(Fischer, 1994).
This national effort would seem to indicate a shift in Canada's
policy on illicit drugs, but seemingly little evidence of that
shift is apparent. Soon after the announcement of Canada's Drug
Strategy, laws were enacted (in 1988 and 1989 respectively),
which prohibited the sale of drug paraphernalia and increased
the power of police to seize the assets of arrested drug
offenders (Erickson, 1992, p. 249).
Bill C-85, introduced at the end of the Conservative
Government's reign (in 1992), clearly sought to strengthen the
prohibition of drugs in Canada, at the expense of the drug user.
The proposed law, coming under attack by opposition members and
from the drug policy research and practice community, was
dropped (Fischer, 1994). (Also, while several external drug
policy and research agencies were present during the debate of
the Bill, one group, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, was
not invited. This was quite surprising, because of the fact
that this centre had been created solely out of Canada's Drug
Strategy itself to serve as an 'arm's length' agency to the
Federal Government for drug research and policy development
(Fischer, 1994, p. 77).)
As a further shock to those in drug policy and research
agencies, the new Liberal government (which had criticized
Bill-85 extensively during Parliamentary debates) tabled Bill
C-7, which was almost a word-for-word simulation of Bill C-85.
This Bill continues the repressive prohibition policies, and is
currently in its third reading in Parliament.
Further, no shift was to be observed with respect to drug
related offences since the Strategy's inception. The number of
drug-related offences reported by police hovered around 60,000
for the first three years of the Strategy's implementation
(Jensen and Gerber, 1993, p. 457).
Finally, money allocated to the provinces by the Federal
Government for the creation and/or continuation of prevention
and treatment programs has not been utilized -- due mainly to
the structure of the program. Provinces have had to put up 100
per cent of the cost of these types of programs before receiving
half of these funds from the Federal government. As a result,
over 50 per cent of the allocated money has not been used by the
provinces (Fischer, 1994).
Despite being based on a harm reduction approach then, Canada's
Drug Strategy seems to be more like prohibition in harm
reduction's clothing. Rather than focus solely on reducing the
harmful consequences of drug use, and the even more harmful
aspects of the effects of drug prohibition, Canada's Drug
Strategy neither balances enforcement and prevention /
treatment, nor effects a new outlook on drug policy in Canada.
WHY IS THERE A 'WAR ON DRUGS'?
Having explained that Canadian policy with respect to the use
of illicit drugs constitutes a War on Drugs, that the initial
impetus for prohibitionary policies were borne out of
misinformation, mistrust and sensationalism both out and inside
of Parliament, and that there are well-known and effective
alternatives to the War on Drugs, this paper will now explore
its main question. There are numerous explanations for the
reason that a War on Drugs exists. These explanations will be
discussed in turn, in the hope that a more comprehensive view
(one that covers both psychological and sociological
explanations) will be attained.
Psychological Explanations
Ethan Nadelmann (1994), writes (p. 43):
Indeed, the only way to explain and justify many current
policies is by reference to the fears, prejudices and primitive
moralisms of those who have transformed drug control policy into
a modern version of an authoritarian crusade.
This quote is taken somewhat out of context (as Nadelmann was
writing about harm reduction), but serves as a good introduction
to a psychological explanation of why there is a War on Drugs.
This quote is correct to a point, as illustrated in previous
sections of this paper. Many aspects of the current policies
came out of the fear of the effects of these drugs, prejudice
towards the Chinese at the turn of the century, and the
moralistic tide that was sweeping our country. However, this
quote simplifies the problem somewhat, and doesn't allow for an
explanation of why people continue to use illicit drugs in the
face of prohibition, why prejudices were rarely explicitly
stated in the course of the making of (even the early) Canadian
laws regarding drugs. Nor does it explain the active role of
Federal and local law agencies almost consistently being a part
of drug legislation (in short, if they were afraid, why would
they want to be so closely involved in the War on Drugs?). And
why does the prohibition model continue to dominate Canada's
agenda with respect to drugs in our increasingly secular and
liberal society?
Alexander (1990) offers a psychological explanation of his own,
drawn from years of research and interviews with people from
both sides of the issue. The two main groups, he argues, are
the 'drug warriors', who spearhead the War on Drugs, and the
'resisters' who defy the War on Drugs by using illicit drugs, or
are simply appalled by it, although they may have little
interest in the War on Drugs itself (p. 327-328). Other groups
are also involved in the War on Drugs. A small group, whom
Alexander calls the 'villains', go to extremes to either carry
out or resist the War on Drugs, and in doing so promote the
kinds of violence that typify the worst consequences of drugs
and the war against them. There are also 'double-standard
bearers', who both promote the War on Drugs, and yet are
resisters as well. Finally, the largest group Alexander calls
the 'neutrals', who fund the War on Drugs and have their
opinions swayed to varying degrees by both warriors and
resisters (pp. 328-329).
In Alexander's eyes, the drug war is not being fought over the
drugs themselves, but centres itself around the need to blame
others for societal ills, and a power conflict regarding
personal freedom and social control (p. 329).
Blaming Others
Throughout history, people have pointed their finger at
different groups, in order to fulfil three psychological needs
that blaming serves. The first is that blaming helps one to
feel that one is doing something in the face of a bad situation.
Second, blaming helps one to escape blame themselves. Finally,
blaming helps to rally other members of society around that
person. Societal ills become more tolerable when one group can
be blamed for these ills (Alexander, 1990, p. 330-331). For the
resisters, blaming the Government for repressive policies can
help one to feel that s/he is doing something about the problem,
and isn't implicated in the creation and continuance of other
societal ills. Drug warriors perhaps get more of a benefit for
blaming, however, as they also have been successful throughout
the 20th Century in rallying the public around their cause.
Conflict Over Power
The drug warriors, Alexander (1990) argues, "embrace the need
to reinforce societal power and suppress personal autonomy" (p.
336). Their concern over illicit drugs, then is that these
substances may reduce the individual's compliance with social
conventions. Drug warriors, interestingly, are not concerned
with drugs which enhance the social order (p. 337). They have
no objection to caffeine, little objection to nicotine and
alcohol, and little concern for those in hospitals being given
any sort of pharmaceutical agent. Resisters, on the other hand,
place individual autonomy well above societal control. They
believe they should be free to consume illicit drugs as long as
that consumption does not hurt other people. Resisters are very
much concerned with legal drugs that are used to control people
in mental hospitals and in military applications (p. 339).
The Psychological Explanations -- A Summary
Alexander (1990) fills in many of the blanks left by
Nadelmann's succinct comment on the reasons for the War on
Drugs. For example, a reason why resisters continue to defy the
War on Drugs is put forth, as is the reason why a War on Drugs
continues to this day. Alexander admits that his explanation is
a psychological, and not a political one (p. 326). Alexander's
explanation is perhaps made more valid by the fact that he chose
to conscientiously interview drug warriors and try to place
himself in their shoes, so to speak. Alexander's explanation
also elicits elements of a major sociological perspective that
has been applied to the laws which are the expression of the War
on Drugs. This perspective, called 'conflict theory' will be
discussed next.
Sociological Explanations
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory arose out of a concern that structural
functionalism neglected conflict in society, was politically
conservative, and failed to account for change in society
(Ritzer, 1992, p. 61). This theory has evolved to include
elements of structural functionalism (for example, the functions
that conflict serves) and a traditional Marxist focus on
dominant and subordinate groups. In the sociology of law,
conflict theory often depicts a:
polarization of the forces of 'law and order' on the one hand
and left wing political activists and minority group members
reacting to what they saw as excessive police repression of
political protests and urban riots on the other (Giffen, et al.,
1991, pp. 8-9)
This aspect of conflict theory assumes, however, that the
dominant and subordinate groups are more or less homogenous in
nature. Most research in the field of drug policy recently,
however, deals with power being located in "institutional
structures in society (economic, governmental, religious, etc.)"
(Giffen, et al., 1991, p. 10), which does not presuppose
homogenous groups. Both views have problems (Giffen, et al.,
1991), however for the purposes of this paper both views will be
considered, and discussion will focus on what may be termed a
'naive' view of conflict theory, one which allows for some
oscillation between the two different views of conflict theory.
This view is one that presupposes that the powerful in society
may selectively criminalize actions of those who are subordinate
to them.
Given this bracketing, conflict theory has quite a bit of
explanatory value. It also is supported (albeit sometimes more
implicitly than explicitly) by a number of people involved in
drug policy research (for a strong example, see Johns, 1991,
below), although it seems to be clear that this theory is being
explored more in the United States than here in Canada. A
rational reason for this is that the United States has a much
bigger problem with lines being drawn between races and cultures
than we do in Canada. After attending a conference on drug
issues in the United States, Riley (1994b) remarked that many
researchers felt the real reason for the war on drugs in that
country was that it helped to suppress blacks and minorities.
Of course, conflict theory then allows for a certain amount of
speculation on the motives of those in power. For example, it
is thought by some that rhetoric in the U.S. war on drugs helps
presidents construct policies which are:
... targeted toward blacks and minorities without reference to
race [and] polariz[e] the electorate among racial lines and ...
weaken the traditional economic divisions between Democrats and
Republicans ... without communicating overt bigotry or
anti-black effect to whites. (Edsall and Edsall, 1991, pp.
138-139)
Johns (1991) under the heading "Race: The Creation of an Enemy
Class," writes bluntly: "The enforcement tactics of the War on
Drugs are focused on minority populations" (p. 155). In her
paper, Johns (1991) posits that the War on Drugs takes attention
away from the factors which underlie the problems of drugs and
trafficking, partly because the "more powerful segments in
society" (p. 150) do not want attention focused the poor job
they are doing to cure the ills of society. Johns also expands
the group being oppressed include the poor, who have been hit
with massive housing and health care cuts under the Republican
Presidencies. The dichotomy between those in power and
minorities and the poor is self-perpetuating, in that these
groups have a limited upward mobility (and, therefore crimes
like trafficking in illicit drugs becomes appealing), and when
they do try to increase their wealth through illicit means,
those in power see that as justification for minorities and the
poor being in the position they are in.
Canadians have quite a bit of historical experience with racism
as being one of the factors which precipitated much of the early
prohibition laws. However, one of the failings of conflict
theory becomes apparent when researchers in the history of this
legislation find little in the actual discussion of the laws
that pertains to race. Giffen, et al. (1991) write that the
early legislation's principle proponents had the "altruistic
aims of supporting the international anti-opium movement"
despite the anti-Chinese sentiment of the times (p. 525). The
fact that the laws were used solely against the Chinese at first
is indicative of this anti-Chinese sentiment, and not the
creation of the laws themselves. Later legislation was driven
mainly by enforcement officials, as there was little in the way
of public outcry for more rigorous anti-opium legislation (p.
525).
In the United States as well, early marijuana legislation came
as a result of increased crime in the jurisdiction of
enforcement officials, who found marijuana to be an easy
scapegoat in their explanation of the problems. It was only
during a campaign to have anti-marijuana laws established that
anti-Mexican sentiment was used to create an ominous mythology
surrounding marijuana use. This complicates a simple conflict
theory explanation, because the real focus was initially on
marijuana, and not on a minority group.
Thus, conflict theory is problematic in describing why there is
a war on drugs. It may help to explain (as Johns (1991)
successfully does) why a War on Drugs continues in the U.S., but
leaves unanswered questions when applied to the Canadian
situation. In the United States, perhaps, there is a stronger
mythology of a racial link with drugs, and if that is so, it
could be that those with power in the U.S. have bought wholly
into the mythology created by their predecessors. It is the
creation of mythology and the social construction of drug
problems and threats that will be discussed next.
Social Construction of a Drug Problem
In the above discussions of the effects of drugs on the user,
it becomes clear that there are two arguments to be made. The
first is that drugs pose a threat that is almost unlimited in
its scope. This group elicits images of 'crack babies', evil,
crime, death and insanity to describe the problem with drugs.
The other group (usually more calmly) sees this as a case of the
Emperor's New Clothes, and points to low self-reported use, and
documented evidence that the 'problem' is created mainly from
the effects of the repressive drug laws themselves. Some in
this second group illustrate how members of the first group may
benefit from their calls of alarm. By doing so, they point out
that the gains to be made from alarming the public are such that
the alarmists actually go out of their way in order to largely
create a social perception of a problem when there is actually
no problem to begin with. This is often referred to as the
construction of a social problem, and will be discussed in this
section.
Jensen and Gerber (1993) write about Prime Minister Mulroney's
statement that "drug abuse has become an epidemic that
undermines our economic as well as our social fabric" (p. 455)
as a failed attempt at the social construction of a drug
problem, in order to increase support for his leadership at the
polls. They cite statistics (similar to the one cited above)
that suggest that no epidemic was actually taking place. In
their words, "neither self-reports, official statistics, nor
health-related statistics provide consistent evidence that there
was an epidemic in illicit drug use during the 1980s" (p. 458).
In short, Prime Minister Mulroney had no objective justification
to call Canadians' use of drugs, or the consequences thereof, an
epidemic that suddenly manifested itself in 1986. What makes
this effort a failed one, according to the authors, was that the
drug issue was not high on the agenda of many Canadians
(previous to the PM's speech), and widespread scepticism of the
claims made by the Prime Minister prohibited any significant
social problem to be effectively constructed.
In the United States, however, President Reagan's call for a
War on Drugs seemed to be wildly successful. By 1989, drugs
were seen by 64 per cent of the U.S. population as the leading
problem in the country (Goode, 1990, p. 1088). In periodical
literature, however, a peculiar trend in emphasis on drugs
occurred. Articles on drugs rose almost exponentially in the
few years leading up to President Reagan's announcement, and
subsided in the years following (pp. 1088-1089). Newspapers
reflected public concern in that the number of articles in The
New York Times concerning drugs and drug trafficking increased
in 1986, fell slightly in 1987, and then rose dramatically in
1988 and 1989 (p. 1089).
It was clear to Goode that the U.S. was experiencing a moral
panic over the use of drugs. Several researchers, himself
included, asked 'why?, and why now?' and answered that America's
problem with drugs was indeed a social construction (Goode,
1990, p. 1090). This answer was often based on the fact that
self-reported drug use declined in nearly every drug and age
category, and was "strikingly lower than was true for the late
1970s and early 1908s" (P. 1091).
However, Goode also noted that every other objective measure of
the drug problem in the U.S. did rise during the 1980s. These
included personal use of cocaine (and crack) once a week or
more, larger numbers of overdoses, multiple illicit drug use
problems of a medical nature, larger number of arrests where
drugs were concern, and increase in the number of police
officers killed in drug-related incidents, and increase in
drug-related homicides, and a higher number of babies born to
cocaine addicted mothers (pp. 1091-1093). Goode uses this data
to argue that social problems are constructed, but that they can
be constructed of both objective and subjective factors.
Goode's argument that the construction of social problems are
not created out of whole cloth points out the trouble with
social construction theory in certain instances. In the case of
Jensen and Gerber's (1993) study described above, little
evidence is given for the assumption that the PM specifically
sought to increase his standings in the polls, other than
reporting that the public did not support him enough to win an
election at that time. However, two years later, he was
re-elected on a single-issue platform, but that platform was not
the drug war. Perhaps his statement reflects more his reaction
to President Reagan's call for the War on Drugs two days
earlier, and a feeble attempt to test the waters of the opinion
of Canadians on the subject. Also, it seems to be clear (from
Goode's data on periodical publications and newspapers) that
Americans were far more concerned with the problem of drugs
shortly before President Reagan called for a War on Drugs, while
Canadians did not share this concern before PM Mulroney made his
remark.
One last point that needs to be discussed is the fact that
deaths and illness resulting from licit drug use are far more
numerous than they are for illicit drug use (Goode, 1991, p.
1094). This points to a question regarding the overwhelming
concern with illicit drugs, especially when that concern is
brought about so dramatically, as was the case with President
Reagan, and somewhat so in the case of PM Mulroney. Johns
(1991) explains this as an effort to keep the mind of the public
off the damage that licit drugs (including alcohol, tobacco and
pharmaceuticals) are doing, by constantly calling for a
continuation of the War on Drugs.
Moral Entrepreneurs and Status Politics
The concepts of moral entrepreneurs and status politics are
closely linked, and are themselves closely linked with the
construction of social problems. Each of these two concepts
requires that one person (in the case of the moral entrepreneur)
or any segment of society (in the case of status politics)
attempts to create rules that others must follow. In doing so,
the rules define who is deviant in a society and who is not.
Boyd (1983) writes that Becker (1963) argued that a study of
deviance should not only study those labelled as deviant, but
also study those who create the label of deviance. The societal
creation of rules can be attributed to the work of a moral
entrepreneur (Boyd, 1983, p. 260). Again, this sometimes
requires a certain amount of speculation on the interests and
motives of the moral entrepreneur. For example, was Mackenzie
King a moral entrepreneur? He certainly thought that he had a
great deal of influence on the early anti-opium legislation, and
he depicted himself as a lone force in getting this legislation
passed (Giffen, et al., 1991, p. 74). Whether this was entirely
true seems, for the most part, to be debatable. Also, his
motives seem to be more in line with legislating a form of
social control, rather than specifically creating a definition
of deviance. There seems to be more data on other groups'
attempts to create a definition of deviance, however. Boyd
(1983) points out that individuals, and not groups or social
institutions can be thought of as moral entrepreneurs (p. 260).
The concept of status politics accommodates groups as well as
individuals. Status politics also merges smoothly with conflict
theory. Status politics deals well in cases where there are few
tangible gains to be made by the dominant group. The gain,
rather, is a symbolic one, in which a particular life style (the
one of the dominant group) is embodied in legislation, whether
it is enforceable or not (Giffen, et al., 1991, p. 17). An
example of this is the legislation which added marijuana to the
list of banned drugs in 1923, even though little, if any,
marijuana was currently in the country. In effect, banning
marijuana legislated a culture and a life style that was free
from the crime that had been associated with marijuana use in
the United States at the time.
CONCLUSION
The politics of drug legislation is a complex web of class,
power, race, fears, social conditions and law. In asking 'why
is there a War on Drugs?', we are also asking a question that
begs for psychological and sociological answers. However, these
answers become more complex the deeper one travels into the
literature, and uncovers more factors which seem to vary over
both time and space.
Alexander's (1990) psychological explanation attempts to
uncover the universal 'truths' that guide the impulses and
emotions of both the drug warriors and the resisters. Here, the
battle is over social control and individual freedom, a problem
J.S. Mill (1859/1978) wrote as having "divided mankind almost
from the remotest ages" (p. 1). Alexander's theory can help
explain that a certain segment of the population wants very much
to curtail individual freedom, by in effect legislating their
morality and fears onto the rest of society. This has much in
common with several of the sociological theories (for example,
conflict theory), but where conflict theory in particular offers
no explanation for (and indeed, neglects) drug use among those
in the dominant group, Alexander's theory allows both for
hypocritical actors, and for the changing roles of the groups
over time. Alexander, in this sense, is quite aware of the fact
that people's motives are independent of their actions, and that
their actions have over time been focused against different
groups, while their motives remain consistent. As well, since
the psychology of the situation is considered, actions can
easily be irrational, and because of this account for actions
which have little material benefit for the drug warrior or the
resister.
Conflict theory, on the other hand, has much in common with
Alexander's theory, at least in that there are opposing sides.
We see the same pattern of us-against-them, except that the
sides are more stringently defined. Conflict theory also fills
in what Alexander leaves out, and that is the political and
sociological environment in which these actions take place.
Within conflict theory, the reasons for the drug war are that
the dominant group in society wants to legislate their life
style and culture on others, in order to maintain their
hegemony. In much of the American research, this hegemony comes
at the expense of the minority groups, and the poor. In
Canadian research, these lines of power are much harder to
define, and in it there is little explicit feeling that drug
legislation is specifically directed towards one race or
another. The effects of the legislation were certainly felt by
early immigrants to this country, but the emphasis changed as
that members of that group were no longer available to be
persecuted. There is a feeling, however, that a class
distinction is made, in that (as in the United States) these
laws penalize the poor more than they do the rich.
Also, if the War on Drugs is a social construction, one must
have to consider that it is a superbly constructed one, and one
that has resisted all attempts to disarm it. The temptation to
say that the War on Drugs is simply a social construction,
brought about by status politics is a strong one, however the
motivations of those who successfully created it are sometimes
misinterpreted or misreported. Other times they are simply not
known. Social construction also neglects the way in which a
society can be moved to support even the most preposterous
measures of the War on Drugs. Societal opinions are seen to be
tied by a string of unknown size to the person, or persons doing
the constructing. Again, it is a psychological explanation that
may help to shed light on this process, by examining the ways in
which people's fears and prejudices are manipulated.
At the heart of it all, though, is the intense amount of
morality that is present in any questioning of the reasons that
a War on Drugs is taking place. Even though the War on Drugs
takes place in a largely secular, liberal society such as ours,
there is never a dearth of people who seem to want to fight to
the end to keep prohibitionist laws in place. The statements
made by the drug warriors, or the dominant group (or even the
hypocrites who both decry the use of drugs in others, yet use
drugs themselves), are the only consistent factor that pervades
the history of the War on Drugs. This takes the form of the
rhetoric that has been written and spoken from the earliest
times, and it takes many forms, including drug 'education',
flyers, tracts, sermons, public service announcements,
posters... even arcade games flash out the same messages to
arcade-addicted youth. The rhetoric is the result of the dogma
of the War on Drugs, and need not be associated with any
religion in order to prove effective.
Of course, early prohibition laws were not based entirely (or
in some cases, at all) on an explicitly moral basis. But it is
interesting to note that in every case, the morality of drug use
sprang up as justification for the early laws, and the laws that
followed. Conflict theorist have tried to explain at times that
morality, whether in the form of racist attitudes or religious
influence, have caused legislation to be enacted, which is not
always the correct interpretation of the situation. However,
their focus on the legislation as validating the life style and
culture of the dominant group is not without cause, because
imposing the life style and culture on another group is
essentially a moral decision. Indeed, even when the early
legislation focused on suppressing the international trade of
opium, it was a moral decision to curtail one form of economic
activity to benefit another.
Conflict theory also helps to identify the groups that benefit
from anti-drug legislation, whether it be the economic gains
made by multi-national pharmaceutical companies (as Johns (1991)
argues), or symbolic gains made by the dominant group in
society, or even just the satisfaction of seeing some of these
laws affect only a certain, despised group in society. When
these gains are made, unintended effects of the laws (which may
be much more punitive than the laws themselves) are justified
through a feeling of moral superiority that often comes entirely
at the expense of those who suffer as a result.
In sum, morality takes on many faces. It can take the shape of
cultural or economic superiority, and often manifests itself in
the rhetoric of the War on Drugs. It serves many purposes, as
well. It justifies authority and power of those making the
laws, it justifies the economic superiority of those
corporations which make money through the sale of licit drugs,
and it justifies prejudice against subordinates in society. The
most interesting aspect of this morality, though, is that drugs
themselves aren't the focus. The focus is on a large-scale
battle between real people and their core beliefs, and not on
evidence, rationality, or humanity. The War on Drugs,
therefore, is at its heart a battle over a morality that is
pervasive on a societal level, very well-entrenched, and
deflects arguments of evidence, rationality and humanity at the
societal level. What may be needed to defuse the War on Drugs,
then, is a grass roots approach that calls for a re-defined
culture and morality regarding drug use based on the Canadian
tradition of a peaceable society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adlaf, E.M., R.G. Smart, and M.D. Canale (1991) Drug Use Among
Ontario Adults, 1977-1991. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
Akers, R.L. (1991) "Addiction: The Troublesome Concept." The
Journal of Drug Issues, 21, 4, pp. 777-793.
Alexander, B.K. (1990) Peaceful Measures: Canada's Way Out of
the 'War on Drugs'. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Becker, H.S. (1963) Outsiders. New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Cited in: Boyd, N. (1982) "The Dilemma of Canadian Narcotics
Legislation: The Social Control of Altered States of
Consciousness." Contemporary Crises, 7, pp. 257-269.
Boyd, N. (1982) "The Dilemma of Canadian Narcotics Legislation:
The Social Control of Altered States of Consciousness."
Contemporary Crises, 7, pp. 257-269.
Brecher, E.M. (1972) Licit and Illicit Drugs. Mount Vernon, New
York: Consumers Union.
Edsall, T.B. and M.D. Edsall (1991) Chain reaction: The impact
of race, rights and taxes on American politics. New York: W.W.
Norton and Company. cited in: Elwood, W.N. (1994) Rhetoric in
the War on Drugs. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, p. 3.
Elwood, W.N. (1994) Rhetoric in the War on Drugs. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Erickson, P.G. (1992) "Recent Trends in Canadian Drug Policy:
The Decline and Resurgence of Prohibitionism." Daedalus, 121,
pp. 239-267.
Erickson, P.G. (1993) "The Law, Social Control, and Drug Policy:
Models, Factors and Processes." The International Journal of
the Addictions, 28, 12, pp. 1155-1176.
Erickson, P.G. and M.S. Goodstadt (1979) "Legal Stigma for
Marijuana Possession." Criminology, 17, 2, pp. 208-216.
Erickson, P.G. and G.F. Murray (1986) "Cannabis Criminals
Revisited." British Journal of Addiction, 81, pp. 81-85.
Erickson, P. and R. Smart (July 11, 1994) "U.S.-style drug
policy isn't the answer." Toronto: Toronto Star, p. A12.
Des Jarlais, D. and S.R. Friedman (1994) "AIDS and the Use of
Injected Drugs." Scientific American, February 1994, pp. 82-88.
Fischer, B. (1994) "'Maps and Moves'" The International Journal
of Drug Policy, 5, 2, pp. 70-81.
Giffen, P.J.; S. Endicott and S. Lambert (1991) Panic and
Indifference. The Politics of Canada's Drug Laws. A Study in
the Sociology of Law. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Goode, E. (1990) "The American Drug Panic of the 1980s: Social
Construction or Objective Threat?" The International Journal of
the Addictions, 25, 9, pp. 1083-1098.
Health and Welfare Canada (1989) Licit and Illicit Drugs in
Canada. Edited by Marc Eliany. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and
Services.
Jensen,, E.L. and J. Gerber (1993) "State efforts to construct a
social problem : The 1986 war on drugs in Canada." Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 18, 4, pp. 453-462.
Johns, C. (1991) "The War on Drugs: Why the Administration
Continues to Pursue a Policy of Criminalization and
Enforcement." Social Justice, 18, 4, pp. 147-165)
Mill, J.S. (1859/1978) On Liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc.
Nadelmann, E.A. (1994) "Progressive Legalizers, Progressive
Prohibitionists and the Reduction of Drug-related Harm." in
Heather, N., et al, (1994) Psychoactive Drugs and Harm
Reduction: From Faith to Science. London: Whurr Publishers, pp.
34-45.
Oakes, G. (1994a) "Judge jails doughnut shop owner 18 months."
Wednesday, December 14. Toronto: Toronto Star, p. A8.
Oakes, G. (1994b) "Drug importer jailed 9 years in $80,000
bust." Thursday, December 15. Toronto: Toronto Star, p. A11.
Reagan, R. (1986, September 14) "National Campaign Against Drug
Abuse: Address to the Nation." Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Document, 22, 38, pp. 1133-1187. As quoted in
Elwood, W.N. (1994) Rhetoric in the War on Drugs. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger. pp. 28-29.
Riley, D. (1994) The Harm Reduction Model. Ottawa: Canadian
Centre on Substance Abuse.
Riley, D. (1994b) Notes from the November 21, 1994 lecture on
harm reduction, ATOPS Program. Toronto: Addiction Research
Foundation.
Ritzer, G. (1992) Classical Sociological Theory. Toronto: McGraw
Hill, Inc.
Senate Debates, Canada (1910-1911) As quoted in Giffen, P.J., S.
Endicott and S. Lambert (1991) Panic and Indifference. The
Politics of Canada's Drug Laws. A Study in the Sociology of Law.
Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. p. 86.
Single, E. (1994) "Toward a Harm Reduction Approach to Alcohol
Prevention." 5th International Conference on the Reduction of
Drug-related Harm. Toronto, March 1994.
Single, E., B. Williams and D. McKenzie (1994) Canadian
Profile--Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, 1994.
Smart, R.G. and E.M. Adlaf (1990) "Drug Use in Ontario, Canada."
Bulletin of PAHO, 24, 1, pp. 22-29.
Smart, R.G., E.M. Adlaf and G.W. Walsh (1991) The Ontario
Student Drug Use Survey: Trends Between 1977-1991. Toronto:
Addiction Research Foundation.
Solomon, R.R. and M. Green (1988) "The First Century: The
History of Non-medical Opiate Use and Control Policies in
Canada, 1870-1970." in Blackwell, J.C. and P. Erickson (eds)
Illicit Drugs in Canada: A Risky Business. Scarborough: Nelson
Canada, pp. 88-116.
Solomon, R.R., E. Single, and P.G. Erickson (1988) "Legal
Considerations in Canadian Cannabis Policy." in Blackwell, J.C.
and P.G. Erickson, eds (1988) Illicit Drugs in Canada: A Risky
Business. Scarborough: Nelson Canada, pp. 370-391.