Making Illicit Drugs Legal?: The Misconceptions of the Decriminalisation of Drugs
Source: https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/sylvester-l-salcedo/
Reminding us that the concept of ‘drugs’ is contemporary, academics argue that the ‘drugs problem’ ceased to exist two hundred years ago. More recently, the incentive to improve responses from criminal justice policies in regard to the use of drugs and their distribution has never been more prominent after a number of drug-related deaths amongst young people. Frequently finding itself at the heart of debate, incorrect interpretations of the difference in what is meant by the ‘decriminalisation’ of drugs in comparison to the ‘legalisation’ of drugs evades the ability to increase levels of public health whilst minimising crime. Misconceptions therefore assume that substances such as cocaine, cannabis and heroin will be made available for purchase by the public.
The decriminalisation of illegal drugs simply seeks to reduce the punishment of those that intend to consume, possess and distribute illegal substances (Husak, 2003). The disparity lies between definitions of decriminalisation and legalisation, as the legalisation of drugs is ‘the complete removal of sanctions, making a certain behaviour legal and applying no criminal penalty’ (Hughes and Stevens, 2010, p. 999). In essence, the decriminalisation of drugs merely reduces the criminal sanctions carried with their use, possession and distribution, whilst the legalisation of drugs would remove these sanctions completely, rendering the behaviour legal.
Opposing the notion behind minimising criminal sanctions associated with drug offences, the public are ignorant to the difference between the legalisation and the decriminalisation of drugs. Misconceptions assume that there is a want for heroin ‘on the supermarket shelves’ (Nutt, 2012, p. 211), but rather the intention is to steer drug policies away from criminal justice and in its place increase levels of public health. Decriminalisation does not necessarily favour a wide accessibility of substances such as cocaine, cannabis and heroin, but seeks to reduce the criminal sanctions imposed on drug offenders. Controversially, arguments that support this notion are in danger of becoming misinterpreted by the police, who adopt the misconception that the total legalisation of drugs is being championed.
Although drug policy is bounded by UN conventions, it allows room for adaptation as each state has discretion in regard to the prosecution and penalties for possession of drugs. Intended to reflect the harm inflicted by consumption, drugs are classified into categories in England and Wales: categories A, B and C. A single yet critical moment in 2004 suggested that the government had taken notice of the impetus behind the decriminalisation of drugs, as the downgrade in the classification of cannabis came into place. Reclassification from class B to class C decriminalised drug offenders as the penalties carried with drug-related offences automatically reduced.
Nonetheless, effects of cannabis and its regulation have received heavy debate from both the public and academics. Concerns surrounding the minimised reclassification of cannabis arose from politicians and medical professionals regarding the risk of schizophrenia when using cannabis. Yet, only weak association could be identified through longitudinal studies for cannabis being a cause of psychotic illness. Moreover, empirical research has also suggested that the declassification did not appear to encourage cannabis consumption or even increase the commission of crime amongst the age group deemed to have benefitted from it (15-17- year-olds). Choosing to ignore a recommendation from the Council that no need for change was necessary in order to improve public health challenges related to cannabis, the Government returned to its original classification of class B. Drug policy therefore fails to achieve its primary objective of advancing human health and welfare. Moreover, academics argue that the war on drugs is allowing a racist narrative by permitting police brutality as a consequence of labelling BAME groups as drug offenders.
Support for the legalisation for drugs varies amongst different political and sociodemographic group. Research contests existing policies as it suggests there is little consideration for the opinion of those who indulge in drug-taking – arguably the most affected group of anti-drug policies. Arguments that favour the notion that drugs should not be criminalised include the fact that there is no good reason for their initial criminalisation. Despite evidence across the globe that increasing penalties for drug users has ceased to deter drug-using behaviour, political averseness when attempting to reform drug-related law is apparent. Whilst studies have suggested that those who use cannabis are more likely to support its legalisation and are less likely to support the legalisation of ‘harder’ substances such as heroin and cocaine, the users of those ‘harder’ substances are more likely to support the legalisation of all drugs (Trevino and Richard, 2002). It is apparent that the never-ending global war on drugs is yet to limit the use of illegal drugs, whilst it fuels the spreading of HIV and AIDS. Nonetheless, the Government seem to yield little concern surrounding the topic of decriminalisation of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin.
Evidence from countries which have decriminalised their use and possession indicates that anticipated catastrophes have ceased to occur. Attracting a lot of political and media attention, Portugal’s radical change in drug policy has unfortunately received high volumes of scrutiny, particularly as ‘violent criminals remain in control of supply’ (Hurley, 2016, p. 2474). Conflicting with UN treaties, which do not permit the legalisation and regulation of drug markets, Portugal have since ignored the requirement that all non-medical drugs are to be prohibited.
Surviving 10 years of the decriminalisation of drugs, Portugal is a means of confidence for those that want to grasp the liberalisation of illegal drugs. Substances including heroin and cocaine received reduced criminal sanctions in terms of acquisition, possession and their personal use, yet the ‘sky did not fall’, nor did predicted havoc follow suit (Laquer, 2015, p. 747). Fear of increased drug consumption by children was eliminated as the use of drugs amongst 15-19-year olds reduced. Since its deviation from the social norm of condemning those who choose to consume such substances, Portugal has seen a fall in HIV-related infections, improving the quality of public health and eliminating concerns of overexposure to illegal drugs - the primary objective of UK drug policy.
Controversially, Crime Commissioners appear to be proposing solutions which could tackle flawed drug policy in England and Wales by initiating debates surrounding its future and the possibility of its amendment. The idea of making illegal substances available on prescription is one of the many recommendations proposed in favour of the decriminalisation of illicit drugs in England and Wales. Whilst it would enable medical professionals to monitor a drug user’s use, it would also allow them to assist in their withdrawal should they wish to overcome their addiction. But will England and Wales follow in the steps of Portugal to improve public health?
In conclusion, it is evident that misconceptions surrounding the decriminalisation of drugs may result in ineffective punitive policy. Moreover, it is apparent that decriminalisation of drugs does not welcome a state of drug frenzy, but instead facilitates more important matters, such as increasing public health and minimising the impact of drug-taking by reducing risk of infection and reducing the rate at which drugs are consumed. There is little evidence to suggest that cannabis is linked to the cause of psychotic illnesses, nor is there evidence to suggest that its decriminalisation in 2004 encouraged drug consumption and its associated criminal behaviour. This begs the question of why the Government in England and Wales appears so reluctant to decriminalise a drug that carries low risk factors, if not all illegal substances.
References
Hughes, C. and Stevens, A. (2010) What Can We Learn About the Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?: British Journal of Criminology. 50 (6), pp. 999-1022
Hurley, R. (2016) Consider Legalising Drugs Despite UN Treaties, Says Influential Commission: BMJ. 353 pp. 2474-2475
Husak, D. (2003) Four Points About Drug Decriminalization: Criminal Justice Ethics. 22 (1), pp. 21-32
Lart, R. (2008) Drugs and Decriminalisation: Criminal Justice Matters. 74 (1) pp. 40-41
Laquer, H. (2015) Uses and Abuses of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Law and Social Inquiry. 40 (3) pp. 746-781
Nutt, D. (2012) Without the Hot Air: Minimizing the Harms of Legal and Illegal Drugs. Cambridge: UIT Cambridge.
Seddon, T. (2010) Let’s Not Talk About Drugs: Drugs and Alcohol Today. 10 (3) pp. 21-23
Trevino, R. and Richard, J. (2002) Attitudes Towards Drug Legalization Among Drug Users: The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 28 (1) pp. 91-108
