We Should Replace the War on Drugs?

 

Roger Goodman, 45th Legislative District State Representative

Our criminal justice policies should be based on research, not anecdotes, and on reason, not fear.  Liberals fear being labeled "soft on crime" but the public is mostly ahead of the politicians on this issue, understanding that we better hurry up and get smart on crime, instead of simplistically "tough" on crime, before we break the bank.  Counties throughout Washington and across the country are faced with budgets busting with criminal justice costs, squeezing out truly useful investments in libraries, parks and recreation, social services, etc.  Meanwhile, folks don't really feel any safer in their communities.
 
So what does the research show?  The evidence is clear that incapacitating murderers, rapists, robbers, child molesters, domestic abusers and other violent offenders does reduce crime and enhances public safety.  Note carefully that I say "incapacitating" these offenders is effective because it is a practical matter of separating them from the community.  It is important to distinguish the incapacitation effect of prisons and jails from their purported deterrent effect.  Any criminologist will tell you that "punishment" does not deter crime, so we are wasting public resources by merely "getting tough."  In fact there is a positive correlation between sentence lengths and recidivism rates - in other words, the longer we lock someone up, the higher the chance they'll re-offend.  The reliable research shows that criminal sanctions must be swift and certain to be effective, not necessarily harsh, so our current combination of clogged courts and overly punitive sentencing leaves our communities less safe and our public coffers less secure.
 
In sharp contrast to the social utility of incapacitating violent offenders, the vast body of research shows that it is counterproductive to use prisons and jails to "hold accountable" those nonviolent offenders with addictions and mental illnesses.  Confining drug offenders only traumatizes them, leading to further drug abuse, and they also sharpen criminal knowledge and skills by their exposure to other offenders.  The celebrated RAND study from 1994, whose findings have been replicated many times since, revealed that for every $1 invested in the criminal approach to drug abuse we waste at least 50 cents.  The Washington State Institute of Public Policy reported that way back in 1992 we passed the break-even point of the social utility of incarcerating drug offenders (as compared with violent offenders), so we've been extravagantly wasting the taxpayers money for almost 15 years now.  Where over 8,000 of these non-violent individuals are currently locked up, Washington State wastes about $200 million a year in this area.  This is nothing but pouring money down a hole.
 
Treating drug use as a criminal matter rather than a social and medical issue has not been successful in reducing drug use nor the harms arising from drug use.  The prohibition of substances such as cannabis, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine has ironically resulted in the ceding of control of those so-called “controlled substances” to the black market, effectively leaving their production and distribution exclusively in the hands of violent criminal enterprises.  We have been continually seeking new tools to fight the persistent crime problem that has inevitably arisen from the policy of drug prohibition, meanwhile distracting both the state and society at large from effectively addressing the problem of drug addiction itself.

 

On a global scale the regime of drug prohibition has wrought devastating consequences, as powerful gangs threaten stability and corrupt governments in the poorer “source” countries, people and the land are poisoned by drug eradication efforts and terrorist networks tap into the big business of prohibited drugs to fund their operations.  U.S. efforts to suppress drug production from source countries have repeatedly resulted in more efficient production within those countries and in the displacement of production to other countries.

 

History has shown that high profits are assured to those who provide through the “black market” a prohibited product for which there is an unrelenting demand.  Without any regulation, this black market regulates itself through such illegal means as violence and money laundering.   High street-level prices of prohibited drugs lead to higher profits for the criminal gangs, which, in turn, create stronger incentives to continue doing business in prohibited drugs, a global trade that generates about $500 billion a year.

 

In the United States the response to prohibited drug use calls for harsh criminal sanctions, distinguishing the U.S. with the highest incarceration rate in the world.  At least three-quarters of the roughly $40 billion the U.S. spends each year to control drug abuse is to apprehend and punish drug law violators rather than providing prevention and treatment services.

 

Although whites use prohibited drugs at a rate roughly equal to that of African-Americans and Latinos, three-quarters of those incarcerated for drug law violations are non-white.  There are now more young black men in jails and prisons than there are in colleges and universities, largely as a result of the “War on Drugs.”   Poor, minority communities are filled with young men whose futures are bleak, with drug-related criminal histories having reduced the chances of employment and of receiving benefits like food stamps, housing and student financial aid. 

 

The unfortunate legacy of the recent federal drug laws includes a five-fold increase in federal drug convictions since the 1970s and over 67,000 sentenced drug offenders in federal prison in 2001, up from only 3,400 in 1970, where drug offenders now comprise over 55% of the federal prison population.  In the states, the number behind bars for violating the drug laws has increased eleven-fold since 1980, from fewer than 42,000 at that time to more than 500,000 today.  As the “War on Drugs” has intensified in the past 25 years, the number of incarcerated drug offenders has grown by over 1,000 percent, nearly 40 times greater than the growth rate of the U.S. population overall.

 

The tragedy of mass incarceration of drug law violators in the U.S. has been compounded by the lack of progress in reducing access to and use of drugs, especially the use of “hard” drugs by young persons.  Heroin is reported to be easier for high school student to obtain today than it was in the 1970s and 1980s and one in three high school seniors say that it is now easy to get cocaine, crack or LSD.  Cocaine use among teens has risen recently and the average age at first use, particularly of crack cocaine and heroin, has declined significantly in the last dozen years.  In addition, high school seniors report that marijuana is easier to get now than it was during most of the 1980s and 1990s and more high school students currently use marijuana than tobacco.

 

The White House drug control office stresses the importance of supply reduction efforts “to make drugs more expensive, less potent, and less available.”  However, despite federal expenditures of over $50 billion since 1980 on such efforts, the White House itself has reported that cocaine and heroin “street” prices have fallen to historic lows while purity levels have risen and remained stable, signs that the criminal enterprises trafficking in drugs are becoming more efficient, selling a better product for less.  Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies across the U.S. continue to report that illegal drugs are “readily available” in urban, suburban and rural areas.  The abject failure of current U.S. drug policy has finally led to calls for fundamental reform.

 

A driving force behind my legal reform work as an attorney, and now my work in the State Legislature, is the desire to relieve undue pressure on the courts, to improve the administration of justice and to foster greater respect for the law.  I have seen how the failure of the “War on Drugs” has tragically put justice in jeopardy.  We now need to move beyond the mere protest and consider a workable “exit strategy” for the War on Drugs.  Here's where the conversation gets difficult and there is less safe space for dialogue.  Somehow we need to enlarge that safe space to consider fundamental, structural questions about our drug policy -- not just about how to expand treatment for the addicted, but how to undercut the violent “black” market in illegal drugs.

 

Persuasive and voluminous research indicates that a public health approach to drug abuse – stressing research, education, prevention and treatment – is far more effective than the use of criminal sanctions.  However, the policy of drug prohibition, which has spawned a range of intractable problems, from a flourishing “black market” to the spread of blood-borne diseases to official corruption, has been a major impediment to employing such a public health approach.  I'll continue working on proposals that spur the shift of resources from wasteful incarceration toward wiser investments in health and education.  Roger Goodman

 

Rodney Tom, 48th Legislative District Senator

I’ll leave it to Roger’s answer, which is one of the best, most complete answers I’ve seen on the subject.  Great job Roger.  Even the Republicans might be able to see the logic in his answer, but don’t hold your breath (we need you campaigning in ’08). Rodney Tom

 

Deb Eddy, 48th Legislative District State Representative

Criminal law and policy are complex in theory and practice.  I served on the King County Jail Advisory Committee 1994-1999, tracking population, costs and contract compliance for the cities.  From that somewhat narrow perspective, I became aware of (1) the function of the local jail as a de facto mental hospital and stop-gap for the homeless, (2) the pernicious trend toward higher arrest rates and longer sentences for minorities, (3) the illusory promise of 'get tough' programs that drove costs up but offered not one whit of additional security to the public, and (4) the difficulty of funding alternative approaches, such as treatment or counseling, when what the public wants  is retribution.

 

Beyond these few comments, I'll stick with transportation and let Roger speak to these criminal policy issues, which he knows far better than I do!  Deb Eddy

 

Dave Thomas

Our United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (as well as high rates of capital punishment), especially as compared with otherwise similar countries.  Discrimination plays an important role, much higher proportions of ethnic minorities are arrested, sentenced and sentenced to longer sentences for similar crimes. 

 

A recent commentary includes, “While running for governor, Eliot Spitzer campaigned on a promise: "Day One, Everything Changes." Spitzer made campaign statements in support of real reform of the laws. Lt. Gov. David Paterson was a long-time reform champion while Senate minority leader. Families and advocates working for repeal of the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws were cautiously optimistic about Spitzer's promise. It seemed entirely possible that on Day One, the Rockefeller laws, after nearly 34 long, terrible years, might finally be repealed.

 

But in the first hundred days of the new administration, drug law reform went missing in action. Spitzer took on a variety of important issues, but the Rockefeller Drug Laws didn't even make his priority list for the end of the legislative session.

 

Why is it so hard to win real reform, when everyone knows these laws are racist, ineffective, wasteful and unjust? So asks longtime advocate Cheri O'Donoghue, whose son, Ashley, is serving seven to 21 years for a first-time, nonviolent drug offense. Ashley is one of more than 14,000 people incarcerated under these harsh laws.”

 

My largely uninformed opinion is in accordance with the principle that small offenses such as vandalism create an environment which permits larger crimes.  I would require many first time offenders (especially drunk drivers) to spend several days in jail (perhaps without any entertainment and with posters asking them to think about whether they want their behavior to cause them to spend 3 months, a year or 5 years in jail.  But I would greatly reduce the sentences of many non-violent offenders, such as drug users. 

 

I believe we need to recognize that both the targets and the perpetuators of crimes are victims.  We need to protect the public and set an example by incarcerating violent offenders.  But we also need to find a balance between incarceration, probation, treatment and other measures.  When offended against, we often want revenge (a fact which Dukakis famously failed to acknowledge).  But as a Greek drama of 2300 years ago expressed, publicly administered justice must replace revenge.  And it is in the public interest to reform offenders.  Dave Thomas