Apr 13

Apr 13 Punishment or Recovery? The Debate Over How to Address American Drug Addiction By Ryan Gozy

Over 105,000 Americans die from drug overdoses, enough deaths to completely wipe out the population of Albany, the capital of New York. Political divides across the country and federalism have enabled many different policy solutions. These fall into two categories: 1) punishment-based, which focuses primarily on the strict criminalization of drugs including drug use and minor possession; and 2) recovery-based, which focuses on recovery programs combined with decriminalization and legalization for some drugs. Both solutions feature different rationale by policymakers and have led to different outcomes for the regions where these different policies are enacted.

In the United States, the federal government prohibits the manufacturing, distribution and possession of intoxicating drugs used for recreational purposes, though they share the enforcement of these laws with state governments, which account for a much larger number of arrests for drug related crimes. This has remained a power of the federal government since the 1970s, when the beginning of the period known as the War on Drugs gave way for federal legislation that severely restricted the possession of drugs, most notably through the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Despite these powers granted to the federal government, state governments have considerable leverage in enacting policies regarding drug possession and drug use within their jurisdictions. Many states have enacted policies that either criminalize drugs further or are criminally lenient and rehabilitative in nature, with many policies seemingly conflicting with federal legislation.

Many states choose the policy directive of strict control and increased criminalization of drug possession. Florida, for example, has enacted legislation to make any possession of a controlled substance a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison or up to $5,000 in fines. There is a strong correlation between primarily Republican states and strict criminalization policies regarding drugs. Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida are all currently considered red states and all have policies that make possession of drugs, even at small amounts, a felonious crime.

The primary rationale regarding the strict prohibition of drug use and possession at all amounts is the tough-on-crime perspective, which favors lengthy sentencing, mandatory minimums and punishment over lenience and rehabilitation. This is often justified through appeals to public safety and deterrence. Beyond public safety and preventing harm on non-drug users, many supporters of drug criminalization view these policies as a form of legal moralism and legal paternalism, which prohibits acts deemed societally immoral and prohibits acts in an attempt to protect the offender.

The policy outcomes in states that criminalize drug offenses are mixed. Generally, these states see far higher arrest rates for drug offenses compared to states where drug possession is a misdemeanor. In reducing overdoses, the data shows variance in results. In South Dakota, where drug possession is felonious, there is a relatively low overdose rate per 100,000 people, whereas in Louisiana, where drug possession is also considered a felony, there is a relatively high overdose rate per 100,000 people. The effectiveness of drug criminalization in reducing crime is also questionable. Louisiana, Arkansas and New Mexico are the three most dangerous states, all of which make minor drug possession a felony.

Many states have rejected the tough-on-crime initiative and have instead moved to legalize and regulate drugs like marijuana while also decriminalizing minor possession of harder drugs, focusing attention instead on rehabilitation and treatment-based solutions. States that have passed decriminalization legislation for drug possession include New York, Washington, Oregon and Massachusetts. This is typically considered a liberal policy, which correlates with mostly blue states passing these decriminalization policies.

Supporters of these policies argue that the criminalization of drugs has been largely ineffective and has led to discriminatory enforcement targeting minority groups, with Black Americans being arrested at a much higher rate than white Americans. Underlying the policies of these states is the concept of harm reduction, which is an abstract concept that encompasses rehabilitation and treatment practices alongside promoting the safest use of drugs. Harm reduction and decriminalization are not yet widespread in the country, which makes it more challenging to critically analyze, but research has found that regions like New York did not see an increase in crime or health emergency calls after initiating harm reduction practices. While research has shown decriminalization and harm reduction to be effective to some extent, some states that have enacted these policies still show high rates of overdose, such as Vermont.

Currently, there is no clear answer in the problem of drug addiction and overdose. The country is still very divided on the issue, with different states offering strict criminalization, harm reduction, or a mix of both. With yearly overdose deaths reaching numbers comparable to the population of relatively large cities, drug addiction is still very prevalent and must be effectively addressed, which requires further policy analysis.

Ryan Gozy is a Political Science student at Utica University