on-the-drug-war-blog

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Tarrow’s Theory and the End of the War

Tarrow’s theory of social movements identifies five political opportunities that enable social movements: 1) increased access to political processes, 2) shifting alignments, 3) divided elites, 4) influential allies, 5) repression and facilitation. With this theory in mind it seems a social movement could force the government to walk away from the war soon. While there might not be more addicts or former addicts in the political processes almost every law maker now represents a community effected by addiction. The opioid epidemic is becoming unavoidable for many law makers as more of their constituents are effected by it. There are shifting alignments however, there is more understanding that addiction is a disease that cannot just be ended without proper treatment and care. Elites are still divided in on the topic but they are increasingly divided at how to end the war. Do they legalize certain drugs (like marijuana) or do they simply decriminalize all drugs and offer more money to care centers? Thankfully this movement has influential allies- more celebrities and doctors are speaking out to point out that addiction is not a choice, over prescription of opioids is adding to the problem, and the policies are racist against minority nonwhite communities. There are also groups working on similar issues already that are gaining traction. Groups working against for profit prisons are constantly making progress. The black lives matter group is increasing social knowledge of the struggles still facing nonwhite communities. These could all be allies and facilitators of the social movement that rises to take on the War on Drugs. For the movement to succeed though they must be organized and consistently push for the same goal. Fractures would lead to the same inconsistent progress we see currently. 

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Community Development

We have talked over the past ten weeks about the start of the war on drugs, the pitfalls it has created, the community problems involved, and some nonprofits working to mitigate the problems. As we near the end it seems like a good time to offer some more ways to combat addiction and take the steam out of the War on Drugs. 

One function of nonprofits can be to offer job training and community development. Community development is broader than economic development and can often include job training and workforce development, education, advocacy, housing services, microenterprise, and small business development or neighborhood revitalization. The stereotypical drug addict lives in low income neighborhoods with little opportunity for escaping thier communities. Thus nonprofits focused on community development should focus on these communities. Providing people a way out of thier communities would reduce the risk of their getting involved with drug trade. 

The new addicts are people who get addicted after being prescribed narcotics. While this might seem like a harder group to reach through community development it might not be. Addicts often get stuck in their addiction as they get more desperate to be able to afford the drugs. And then often lose thier jobs from lack of productivity. Community development nonprofits could greatly help recently rehabilitated addicts get back on thier feet faster and be self reliant faster. 

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Advocacy and Mobilization

Advocacy is the set of activities that include lobbying, but also some activities that educate about a cause, and some that encourage political participation. Mobilization is political participation. Mobilization can be powerful not only for fueling social and political change but also for building support. The Women’s March on Washington in 2016 is a great example of this. Millions of women world wide took to the street simultaneously to demand that women’s issues are heard and represented. There have been rallies for action on Climate change and even Pride parades could be considered a form of political mobilization.  Unfortunately there is not a rallying mobilization opportunity to change drug laws. The efforts put forward are for niche topics. For example 4/20 celebrations bring awareness to the ever growing industry of Cannabis. Legalization of marijuana seems like an attainable and realistic option in the next five years nationally. This is an easy rallying point because it has an easy end in sight. But ends to the current drug laws seem convoluted with no consensus of how to proceed. Legalizing seems to pose a public health risk. But keeping it illegal creates a strain on the prison. Decriminalization seems like a simple solution. But treatment facilities are not available across the United States and would mean addicts still dealing with their problems on their own. Holding a rally around one of these options would invite too much push back to be productive. If mobilization were to happen it would be around an effect of the drug policy (like mass incarceration of minorities) without proposing a solution for the future. 

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Political Representation

The majority of drug related nonprofits revolve around education efforts. The needle exchange programs we discussed before attempt to educate people about safe needle use and safe dosing. Narcotics Anonymous educated addicts how to free themselves from addiction. But more and more nonprofits in the drug realm are also working on political education efforts. Political representation through education. Political representation is characterized by when nonprofits speak for, act for, and look after the interests of respective groups. Political representation efforts have come in the most obvious form of groups working against overcrowding in prisons. As discussed in other posts the current prison system is full of convicts of drug crimes often nonviolent first time offenders who are from low income neighborhoods and often minorities. Knowing now that Nixon’s drug policies were explicitly racist it makes sense that minorities are the ones often caught up by the policy. Nonprofits efforts to shed light on the disgusting consequences of the drug policy is the first step towards rallying enough support to eventually change them.                                                                                

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Loss of Social Capital

Another effect of individualism in the United States specifically surrounding drug policy is a loss of social capital. According to Pierre Bordieau social capital is “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition”. Basically the network or relationships built in civil society. Capitalizing on social capital is easy for most nonprofits- they pull on the relationships people have or already care about. Unfortunately for drug addicts and the nonprofits that aim to help them they must fight an uphill battle of stigmas (discussed in previous post). 

Narcotics Anonymous relies only on the social capital addicts already have to each other. They rely on strong ties which can often result in an echo chamber but might not be a bad thing in this example. The echo chamber in NA is full of methods that actually worked for the addicts there. 

New nonprofits are springing up with a different approach. They are taking a weak ties approach to offering support to addicts. Many nonprofits in NYC and New York state have sprung up that provide needle exchanges and other safety measures. They are considered ‘harm reduction’ groups. They do not force the addicts to stop using but instead give them safer ways to partake. They offer free condoms, fentanyl test strips, Narcan, and needle exchanges (when you drop off dirty needles you are given clean needles). 

Nonprofits trying to help addicts are having to use new means of building social capital from within the community who needs them. For a full list of needle exchange programs in New York and more information on each visit this site ->https://www.detoxlocal.com/needle-exchanges/new-york/    

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

The pitfalls of Individualism

Individualism is the belief that citizens should take responsibility for achieving and maintaining economic self-sufficiency. This is a strong principle America was founded on. The founders of America came here to have religious freedoms and thus embrace their individuality. The belief was further perpetuated with the saying of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”. Americans have been taught this fear of asking for help. Nixon’s administration started building a stigma around those who abused drugs that they were lazy on purpose and making life harder for everyone else. This stigma has just continued to grow as ad campaigns have built the addict as the other. Tough drug laws also forced the government to be further removed from helping citizens with thier drug addiction. But all of these stigmas are creating more and more problems. 

Below are statistics from AddictionCenter.com:

-The sale of painkillers has increased by over 300% since 1999.

-In 2010, around 13 million people have abused methamphetamines in their life and approximately 350,000 people were regular users. This number increased by over 80,000 the following year.

-There were over 1.8 million Americans 12 or older who used a hallucinogen or inhalant for the first time. (1.1 million among hallucinogens).

We all know these numbers are staggering. But harsh drug laws and the creation of stigma means most of these people will suffer alone. The individualism mindset of America will continue to silence people who need help and continue to leave gaps in services for people who need them most. 

To see more statistics about addiction in the US and globally checkout this link -> https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/addiction-statistics/ 

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Measuring good

Another tenant of effective altruism is measuring good. Meaning they measure the social impact of an action in terms of the total harms and benefits for others. The current policy does not fall in the good realm because the policy is costly to the public. Policy was originally created in the frame of protecting white america from minorities and their potentially harmful actions. But as we have come to learn the policies were actually created to suppress minorities. Which explains why there is an opioid crisis effecting the country. If the current policies were working in stopping the use of drugs being spread the opioid crisis would be stifled. Or at least slowed down. 

A good action would be to fund opioid addiction recovery centers and build community programs to support addicts. As discussed in the last post this would also require decriminalization of drugs. But that would be a good step towards good for addicts and their families. 

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Effective Altruism

Effective altruism is a social movement that uses reason and evidence to find the most effective ways to help others the most. As we have seen from previous posts it is apparent that drug policy in the United States is not written from an effective altruism mindset. There are five tenants of effective altruism we will explore one here and one more in the next post. 

Tenant five is focusing on the best. This states that it is imperative to focus on the best actions, because these are often far better than merely good actions. Enacting this in the context of the drug policy would require investigating what the best policy is for a determined outcome. It seems the current policy is focused on reducing crimes instead of helping addicts. Currently there are few rehabilitation programs in prisons with many people coming back to jail. Which puts massive continuous strains on the system. 

A better outcome would be helping addicts get better. And the best policy would be investing in rehabilitation programs to reduce the number of people going to jail. Which also requires the decriminalization of drugs. This would be a better use of American tax payer money. 

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Moral Philosophy

Deontology states that an action is considered morally good because of some characteristics of the action itself is good. In the war on drugs we have convinced ourselves that the action of locking up addicts is good for our society and will help them become better members of society. But if you recall a previous post entitled “The Beginning- Agenda Setting” the war on drugs has deeply racist roots. At the time it was good for President Nixon to lock up addicts because he was using that as a guise to lock up African Americans to prevent them from voting against him. The policies were extremely beneficial to him. And thus created a precedent of Americans building a respect and reverence around drug policies because they had rules to follow and thought the rules were justified to protect the communities. 

As the US and the world has come to understand addiction more and more a better answer seems a communitarianism approach. Communitarianism places an emphasis on the importance of community in the functioning of political life. There is an understanding that an over prescribing of opioids has led to most of the current crisis new legislation has been passed to address this problem (see post entitled “New Agenda?” for more information). The opioid crisis has reaches in every community and is forcing us to reconcile the philosophy we use to create drug legislation and policy nationally. 

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Nonprofits

There are a multitude of nonprofits centered around drugs and addiction related problems. The majority of the nonprofits fit in the health or human services categories. Health nonprofits focus on supporting the health system including; general and specialty hospitals, community health centers, family planning centers, substance abuse prevention and treatment, etc. The US healthcare system is a mix of these nonprofits, for-profits, and public organizations. Human service nonprofits focus on ranges of services on the community level including: domestic violence programs, food pantries, homeless shelters, senior centers, etc. Obviously these nonprofits work in conjunction often and usually in the same circles. If an addict shows up at a homeless shelter or food pantry they will be steered to a health nonprofit or the health arm of the human service nonprofit. 

The most well known addiction nonprofit is Narcotics Anonymous (NA). NA is a worldwide service that relies on open conversations rooted in the assumption that the only person who can help an addict is another addict.  They have a twelve step program just like Alcoholics Anonymous. They also meet in informal group settings with an informal leaders structure to facilitate discussion. Funding comes only from members and outside funding is not accepted. 

Other nonprofits aim to prevent addiction before it becomes an option for kids. An example of this is Natural High. Natural High was created after its founder lost both his brothers to addiction. He realized that the ‘just say no’ campaign was unrealistic and not helping the next generation. So instead he focused on highlighting to kids all of the natural highs they could find that did not require alcohol or drugs. Their six principles encourage kids to find a passion in life and use the interest to build resilience and grit. With these skills there should not be a reason for kids to get addicted to drugs or alcohol. 

For more information on NA and where their closest meeting is to you look here -> https://www.na.org/

For more information on Natural High and their principles look here                     -> https://naturalhigh.org/

Here is a slide show of other top Nonprofits addressing addiction or addiction prevention -> https://www.thefix.com/content/15-great-addiction-based-nonprofits-and-charities-donate-slideshow-McCarton-Ackerman022215

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Outputs v Outcomes

Policy actions can be measured in two main ways, either through outputs or outcomes. Outputs are the measurable things an agency or organization produces such the number of traffic signals installed or the number of students taught. Outcomes are the substantive results of the implementation of policy which can be intended or unintended, positive or negative. Such as better traffic flow or better educated citizenry. While most legislation holds some indicator of how they will measure success it is unclear how the Trump administration will measure the success of thier new opioid crisis legislation. As discussed in the previous post the legislation increases funding for comprehensive rehabilitation centers and removes restrictions on Medicare and Medicaid funding for rehabilitation services. But the legislation made no effort to decriminalize the drugs. 

Without a clear indicator of success we have to assume one for the administration. The clearest indicator seems to be an outcomes approach. If the overall deaths by overdoes goes down the administration can probably count the legislation as a success. If the deaths by overdose count goes up the legislation probably failed. The problem is there should be an output measure of success so they do not have to wait two years to know if the legislation worked. If they created an output indicator they could show that they are incrementally working towards the outcome goal. They could measure how many rehabilitation facilities are built or how many people are using the facilities. Without these we will have to wait and see the success of the bill. 

For more information on the process the bill took to be passed check out this article. ->https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/trumps-signs-landmark-law-fight-opioid-addiction/573850/

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

A New Agenda?

This week President Trump signed a bipartisan law that addresses the opioid crisis. The law focuses on increasing access to treatment by lifting restrictions on Medicare and Medicaid and backing the creation of comprehensive rehabilitation centers. Bipartisan legislation has been hard to come by in this deeply divided Congress. However the opioid crisis is something facing almost all constituents communities and is forcing collaboration in Congress. While this is a bright line for nonpartisan action it could also be seen as a bright line for changing the Drug War agenda. Agenda setting is the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public and elite attention. Up until this point criminalization has been the norm of the elite focus on dealing with the drug problem (see previous posts on Nixon and drug czars). Now the focus is shifting to an understanding that addiction is a medical problem that needs a medical solution. 

Unfortunately it does not appear this legislation will go far enough to help people. While the legislation does attempt to address the problem of over prescription of opioids and curtailing foreign shipments of illegal drugs, it still does not decriminalize any of the drugs. Which has left many wondering how this legislation will live side by side the strict criminal charges and mandatory minimums (addressed in a previous post). And the legislation only allocates $6 billion over two years to fight the epidemic. Even while experts in the field told them that it was not nearly enough. Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire addressed this saying “We have to treat this as a starting point. We have a lot more work to do.” Hopefully more work will happen to further change the agenda of the Drug War to better help those affected by addiction. 

NPR published an article on the legislation that can be found here -> https://www.npr.org/2018/10/24/660205718/signing-opioid-law-trump-pledges-to-end-scourge-of-drug-addiction

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Wyoming and Drugs

Last week the candidates for Wyoming Governor debated each other at the University of Wyoming. The questions covered almost all topics including LGBTQ+ nondiscrimination ordinances, interstate toll roads, and grizzly hunts (ah Wyoming). One of the last questions asked the candidates their thoughts on medical marijuana for the state of Wyoming. Dr. Rex Rammel of the Constitution party answered first, originally saying he was strongly opposed even though the state could earn extra tax revenue because the population of Colorado has been corrupted by marijuana and will eventually collapse. Right at the end though he said he was in favor of medical marijuana just not recreational. Dr. Lawrence Stuempf answered second urging the audience to fight the executive order Nixon wrote that classified marijuana as a class one narcotic, based off of recent science it should not be classified so high. He then talked about how the opioid crisis can only be slowed with the legalization of medical marijuana. Treasurer Gordon generally agreed but wanted it declassified so research could be done on the purity and proper dosages to be used in a medical setting. Mary Throne simply said that medical marijuana should be legalized because it can help so many people even with the limited research we currently have.  

The only other drug related question was on reducing sentences for simple drug possession charges. Once again Dr. Stuempf spoke first saying that the sentences were only to get private prisons up to their quotas so they should not stay. Treasurer Gordon said he also favored a reduction if it was partnered with an increase in substance abuse programs. Throne clarified that she has always been in favor of decriminalizing marijuana and decreasing prison populations. Dr. Rammel said that he was in favor if the judges could have more discretion as each case is different. 

Over all it seems the future of Wyoming could hold some discussions about reducing sentences for drugs and even some glimmer of hopes for legalizing marijuana. Of course only time will tell. With the opioid crisis all around us in all communities it was nice to hear politicians (for the most part) not fall into the same rhetoric about drugs and advocate for stricter penalties.

To watch the Gubernatorial Debate in its entirety look here -> https://wyocast.uwyo.edu/WyoCast/Play/46dc1d08f39f4613ab3a40a58763547d1d?catalog=b3edf27df1a34752b149e95d7c7dd95621&playFrom=7786&autoStart=true 

KGWN asked all the candidates about their stances on marijuana in this article here -> https://www.kgwn.tv/content/news/Governor-Candidates-Talk-Marijuana-490853791.html

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

The Principal- Agent problem is when the motivations of the agent in an organization has motivations different to the principal. The principal can be a business owner, political leader, or citizen. While the agent can be an employee, public administrator, or street level bureaucrat. Principals can control the level of independence agents have though to minimize the risk of the problem arising. In the War on Drugs a clear principal-agent problem has arisen. Judges usually have some level of discretion when sentencing people in thier courts. They can usually weigh the options of what offers the criminal the best opportunity to not become a recidivist. Unfortunately, this contradicts the War on Drugs narrative. The war on drugs claims that the only way to stop these criminals is to lock them up and that no other option will teach them a lesson (see earlier post on the beginning of the Drug War and how racist policies created this narrative). If a judge sees an addict in thier court they could try to help by sentencing them to a rehabilitation facility which would get them better help than prison. Unfortunately, mandatory minimum sentencing laws removes this discretion from the judge. Now if you have an arbitrary amount of a controlled substance on you and you are in front of a judge you will be sentenced to an arbitrary length of a sentence. This attempt to mitigate the agent’s actions has created serious consequences for the justice and corrections agencies. Including locking up more than 218,000 people in federal prison- half of which are nonviolent drug offenders. 

For more information on the info graph shown above visit:     https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/Mandatory-Minimums.pdf

Additionally, here is a report published by the US Sentencing Commission about the effects of mandatory penalties:          https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties-drug-offenses-federal-system

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Implementing Policy

Implementation (the process by which policies are enacted by government are put into effect by relevant agencies) of Drug related policy has been continually changing since the War on Drugs began. When people hear the ‘war on drugs’ they often think of agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) preforming stings and targeting citizens. Or local police dogs monitoring hallways and airports for drugs. While all of this activities do still occur the War is being changed by states changing how the implement the policies. Legalization of marijuana in many states is the largest ways states are challenging the implementation of the federal drug laws. In states that have legalized marijuana the federal government has made a choice to not enforce thier laws that technically supersede the states laws. Many see this as the federal government trying to not step on the state’s sovereignty. Practically though it is a conscious implementation choice. Another thing changing the implementation of the drug policy is the national opioid crisis. Many states are providing medical help for addicts before perusing legal actions against them. New York cities are experimenting with supervised injection sites- providing clean needles and a sterile environment for users. These spaces are not targeted by the DEA currently to promote safer uses of the drugs. Another conscious implementation choice that is changing the face of the War on Drugs. 

Here is an article about how Massachusetts lawmakers are changing thier state’s drug laws:  https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2015/06/23/marijuana-legalization-massachusetts-politicians-opioids/ 

Here is an article from 2012 discussing how President Obama should/could respond to the first few states to legalize marijuana:  https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/marijuana-legalization-and-states-rights/

And here is a final article explaining Ithaca, New York’s proposed ‘safe injection site’:                                           https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/nyregion/fighting-heroin-ithaca-looks-to-injection-centers.html

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

Sometimes policies can fit into two very different typology groups. Drug policies are a substantive and procedural policy. Substantive policies explain how a government will go about its policy goals in a particular sector. Procedural policy states how the government will go about doing its work. All the incentives the federal government puts on the book to make sure drug addicts and sellers are prioritized equally across the country are procedural policy. I would argue that Presidents giving directives to federal agencies should also be considered a form of substantive policy and sometimes procedural. While not a direct or traditional policy action it does direct how laws are enforced around us and often can act like a piece of traditional policy. Substantive drug policy is probably everything else we hear about the drug policies. The laws differentiating rock cocaine from powder cocaine and punishing unequally for essentially the same thing is a substantive policy that then directed the processes of the bureaucracy.  

[on-the-drug-war-blog]

A typology is a system for categorizing things based on similar characteristics or differentiating things with different characteristics. Wilson’s typology (shown above) breaks down policy into who pays the cost versus who reaps the benefits. Typologies are never perfect and constantly struggle to adequately capture every category without leaving grey area. The Wilson typology is in no means perfect. Current drug policy seems to meet the clientele-oriented politics definition. Currently there are massive public pushes to decriminalize certain drugs like marijuana. And the growing opioid crisis is raising questions about if tough on crime prosecution actually helps addicted people. Even with all this the policy makers have not made changes. Many see this as stemming from their deep connections to big pharma who have played a key role in the opioid crisis by over prescribing drugs costing many, many people. (For a deeper look at these costs see my post entitled Externalities.) There are pockets of drug policy that fit in the majoritarian policies now. The state that have legalized marijuana (either recreationally or medically) have employed the majoritarian policy. Groups advocated for a very substantive policy change from their state and did not produce weak or ambiguous policies. The state policies on marijuana have been very clear and so far have had few kinks on the policy side. More cities legalizing and creating a clean needle program are also examples of the deteriorating clientele-oriented policy. Hopefully we can have more policies that follow this example.