Prohibition of Drugs vs. Harm Reduction Policies

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background
Pros and Cons of Both Approaches
Personal Position and Evidence
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Drug consumption constitutes a major global problem that is also acute in the United States. There are different approaches to combat drug consumption, but one may distinguish two polarizing types: drug prohibition and harm reduction policies. In general, these two classical approaches outline distinctive philosophical worldviews about attitudes toward addicted people and addiction in general. The former means a strict legislature on the trade and storage of illegal substances, making drug circulation harder. The latter concentrates on methods of reducing harm from drug consumption while softening legislation for consumption and storage.

Background

Drug abuse has become a crucial issue on the agenda in the 1970s. In 1971, US President Richard Nixon declared drug consumption as “public enemy number one” (as cited in Exum, 2018, p. 941). In the 21st century, the US still has some awful numbers concerning overdose deaths because of opioids: in 2017, in the US, the overdose mortality ratio was ten times higher than in the European Union (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2019). The target group of these problems in the US is vulnerable people, especially minorities (Kaliszewski, 2022). These people are usually young and inexperienced, so they may easily get an overdose or HIV infection. Therefore, it is a really acute problem that needs a systematic response.

Prohibition-based policies build on harsher attitudes towards the drug trade, targeting it as a challenge to national security and health. This approach gives law enforcement agencies more authority on drug control, which was aimed mainly at reducing drug use. Theoretically, the introduced ban on drug use decreases the number of users, as it is more difficult to get drugs because there are fewer drug dealers and the price is high.

Harm reduction has gained popularity only recently, especially under the active movement of liberal scholars. It is a pragmatic approach to reduce the negative consequences of drug use implemented with the active partnership of users (Owczarzak et al., 2020). The common strategies include needle and syringe programs, HIV testing, safe injection facilities, opioid substitution treatment, and many other similar strategies (Kluczewska & Korneev, 2021). Given the possibility of increased HIV transmission, some policymakers have decided to use a harm reduction approach.

Pros and Cons of Both Approaches

The major benefit of the prohibitionist approach is that strict laws discourage people from experimenting with illicit drugs, including youngsters, which are vulnerable to the drug market. The fear of prison sentences should make people afraid of buying any kind of illegal substance. However, these “pros” can be easily overlapped by the outcomes of the campaign. Scholars emphasize that Nixon’s and Reagan’s stance on drugs resulted in the militarization of police and disproportionate pressure on minority groups (Ghiabi, 2019). Thus, it seems there should be a clear strategy for setting restrictions if the government decides to pursue a prohibition-based policy.

As for the harm reduction approach, the problem is that it is often unwelcomed by the population. In practice, it is regarded as an effective strategy that diminishes the distribution of HIV, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis (Owczarzak et al., 2020). Nevertheless, these policies break the well-established global regime of narcotics control. As Rushton (2018) indicates, the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and some further treaties established the ‘rule of the game’, based on the fight against drug flows. In addition, some conservatives may disregard harm reduction because it is discursively framed as the legalization of free uncontrolled drug consumption.

Personal Position and Evidence

After extensive consideration of both sides, it seems that the harm reduction policies are incompatible with the prohibitionist approach, so transnational organizations and media should soften the suspicion towards harm reduction. Organizations like the World Health Organization and Global Fund, and media such as the Washington Post, New York Times, and others have access to the audience and international actors, so their contribution may be beneficial.

The major reason why harm reduction should replace prohibition-based policies is the deteriorating situation with the penitentiary system. The reason is that the US has the highest prison population globally (International Center for Prison Studies, 2018), and 40% of US drug arrests in 2018 were because of marijuana possession (Gramlich, 2020). The academic community disregards such harsh punishments for minors and marijuana possession because it breaks drug users’ links with health and social services (Csete, 2020). In addition, the large prison population of drug users creates an environment that is very prone to infectious disease infections, such as HIV and hepatitis C (Csete, 2020). Thus, the prohibition-based approach may have disastrous effects in the American context.

Conclusion

To sum up, this essay focused on the critical discussion about the appropriate policies to combat drug addiction in the US. While some argue that the government should fully restrict the drug trade and use harsher methods against drug dealers, others adhere to the pragmatic view that authorities should assist addicted people. This essay concluded that harm reduction policies should prevail because they cannot coexist with prohibitionist practices, which lead to stigmatization and an increased prison population.

References

Csete, J. (2020). More harm than public health in drug policy? A comment. In J. Buxton, M. Chinery-Hesse & K. Tinasti (Eds.), Drug policies and development (pp. 261–273). Brill Nijhoff.

Exum, J. J. (2018). From warfare to welfare: Reconceptualizing drug sentencing during the opioid crisis. Kansas Law Review, 67, 941-959. Web.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2019). Drug-related deaths and mortality in Europe: Update from the EMCDDA expert network. Publications Office of the European Union. Web.

Gabi, M. (2019). Lessons on the drug war from an enemy. Current History, 118(811), 322–324. Web.

Gramlich, J. (2020). Four-in-ten U.S. drug arrests in 2018 were for marijuana offenses – mostly possession. Pew Research Center. Web.

International Center for Prison Studies. (2018). Highest to lowest – prison population total. World Prison Brief. Web.

Kluczewska, K., & Korneev, O. (2021). Policy translation in global health governance: Localising harm reduction in Tajikistan. Global Social Policy, 21(1), 75-95. Web.

Owczarzak, J., Weicker, N., Urquhart, G., Morris, M., Park, J. N., & Sherman, S. G. (2020). “We know the streets:” race, place, and the politics of harm reduction. Health & Place, 64, 1-8. Web.

Rushton, S. (2018). Promoting pro-health policies across regimes: Global AIDS institutions and the harm reduction debate. Global Governance, 24(2), 267-286. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!