Chapter One
DRAFT
Analytical
Perspectives
For
Understanding the “Drug Trade”
·
Analytical Perspectives
· Summary of the Text
A big party is coming up
this weekend. Alcohol and cigarettes will abound. Your dorm mate down the hall
wants to provide the Ecstasy pills as well as the non-alcoholic beverages for
hydration. He calls a friend, who calls another friend, who is waiting for a
new shipment from
How can we best understand
the sequence of events just described? Criminals breaking the law, social
deviants satisfying their unnatural desires, morally weak individuals
succumbing to evil, or rational individuals responding to opportunities to
engage in behavior that brings them some desired outcome (fun, excitement,
social prestige, money, etc.) at what they perceive to be an acceptable risk?
This text presents and
compares the major analytical perspectives used by social scientists to explain
the behavior of individuals as well as public policy efforts to influence that
behavior, and explores how these perspectives explain the drug trade. We know
that our national policy of prohibition has cost us billions of dollars,
millions of lives lost to jail, poor health and even death. Almost everyone
agrees that our national drug policy has not succeeded, even after 30 years,
$300 billion and the highest proportion of population behind bars among
industrialized nations. Understanding why the War on Drugs policy has not
achieved its goals, as well as developing and evaluating alternative approaches
is best done if we think systematically and analytically.
The four analytical perspectives
are Social Deviance, Constructivism, Political Economy and Realism. Each
provides some insight into the drug trade and policy, but each is incomplete to
varying degrees in what it can explain. The readers of this text will be
encouraged to consider how these perspectives can be used, singly and in
combination, to provide a logical and empirically supported argument for why
and how psychoactive substances (more commonly known simply as “drugs”)
influence our lives, as well as understanding the different ways in which
societies approach the phenomenon. The goal of this text is not to present
policy prescriptions but to help shape a debate in which each position is
articulated in its strongest logical and analytical terms. If drug policy is to
improve, the quality of the debate has to be improved.
Social Deviance assumes that a common culture shares social norms and values that determine most people’s behavior. A leading text notes that the concept “refers to behaviors or attributes manifested by specified kinds of people in specified circumstances that are judged to violate the normative expectations of a specified group. ‘Shared normative expectations’ refers to group evaluations regarding the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain attributes or behaviors when manifested by certain kinds of people in certain situations.” The motivation for deviant behavior generally arises because an individual cannot succeed in acceptable terms and thus chooses to undertake activities in which he can succeed, despite their proscription by society. At times an individual may be seek to be part of a group independent of their deviant subculture and wind up behaving deviantly because she wants to fit in. Whether the motivations actually produce deviant behavior depends upon the “relative strength of the motives to commit the act and of those not to commit the act, and on the situational context and other opportunities to perform the act.”[2]
There is a tendency to assume that societal norms are “natural” and inherently correct and anyone who questions those norms is automatically suspect. Hence, the label that deviant behavior is “anti-social.” The core argument of this perspective is that being socially deviant causes people to act in ways that transgress societal norms.
Analysts of the drug phenomenon who utilize this perspective believe that some individuals suffer from a flaw that leads them to violate social norms against the consumption of drugs that society has declared illegal.[3] Many of these analysts assume that the national policy of Drug Free America and voters’ support of legal proscription of currently illegal substances constitutes the social norm on drugs. Drinking at a college party, even by those underage, is acceptable because alcohol is not proscribed by society at large, but using Ecstasy is, by definition, indicative of deviant behavior.
The nature of the flaws that allegedly cause deviance is in dispute among these analysts. Some think that social and economic factors such as poverty, child abuse or discrimination are key causal or contributory elements, though other analysts of this same school reject such links, emphasizing that the majority of people experiencing these social and economic factors do not engage in socially deviant behavior. For these analysts, genetic factors, such as low intelligence, chemical imbalances or a familial history of addiction produces a weak character which is susceptible to deviance.[4] Users of illegal drugs at college parties are thus expected to come from some type of social and economically deprived background, to have trouble adjusting to college pressures, and to be poor students.
Social deviance approaches are most useful when the relevant norms are widely accepted and societal norms are changing only moderately and slowly. While they can accommodate the fact that a society may create different laws governing the use of distinct psychoactive substances, the social deviance approach has a difficult time explaining dramatic changes such as the US prohibition of alcohol in 1919 and its subsequent legalization in 1933. In addition, the widespread use of some illegal substances (e.g., half of US high school seniors have tried marijuana) renders the claim of “deviance” a rhetorical device rather than a useful analytic approach for understanding the drug phenomenon. Consequently, the study of social deviance may not be particularly helpful for understanding and making meaningful comparisons among psychoactive substances that are 1) legal (e.g., alcohol and tobacco); 2) widely used but illegal (e.g., marijuana or alcohol by underage drinkers); and 3) infrequently used and illegal (e.g., heroin).
Social deviance studies have provided some important
insights when they focus on select groups of users. Addicts are clearly on the margins of
society and as their contact with the mainstream decreases addicts get caught
in a pattern of “deviance amplification.”[5]
This insight may go a long way to explain why a small group of users not only
account for most of the illegal drug use, but also the non-drug crime
associated with such use. The Social Deviance approach constitutes the
theoretical basis for a crime-oriented understanding of why some individuals or
groups would violate the rules of behavior approved by society at large.
Deviance studies have made some advances in understanding aspects of the
criminal behavior of drug traffickers. As we will see in more detail in
Chapters 4 and 5, only a minority of traffickers engage in violent behavior,
preferring instead to maintain a low profile, make money and enjoy the benefits
of higher income in mainstream society. But some drug lords, like those leading
the
However, because a social deviance focus assumes that the substance under consideration is illegal, it doesn’t help us understand why we have variations in legal status among pyschoactive substances across place and time. In addition, while it is true that there can be socially disruptive and illegal behavior (beyond mere consumption) associated with these substances, this is not usually the case, and individuals who are not under the influence of psychoactive substances engage in many of these same behaviors. The challenge for social deviance analysts is to develop measures to indicate when a norm becomes a social norm, what threshold is necessary to suggest that a social norm has become weak enough to render the label “deviance” obsolete, and the determinants and processes of norm change.
For the purposes of analyzing the phenomenon of drug consumption and associated behaviors we must consider the possibility that factors other than social norms and the inherent characteristics of the substances themselves are responsible for the way in which we categorize users, understand their behavior, and formulate policy to deal with both.
The Constructivist approach
insists that individual behavior, and therefore the politics of drugs, depends
upon the way in which relevant actors conceptualize the phenomenon of
psychoactive substances and policy options. Constructivists begin their
analyses from the point of view that “ideas, which can only exist in
individuals’ heads, (are)… socially causative.”[7] By
this they mean that facts derive their meaning from the viewer’s preconceived
notions rather than from inherent factors.
For example, in the drug trade, consumption, production and trade of
psychoactive substances, as well as the laundering of money generated by these
activities, are indisputable facts. In that sense each constitutes a
“phenomenon.” Constructivists note that our understanding of the meaning of
these facts varies by substance, time, place, and even by the social
characterization of those involved (class, ethnicity, national origin, gender,
age or race). In the US we tend to see
the person who brought “booze” to the dorm party as simply a “partier” while we
are likely to find more negative words (irresponsible, “pusher”) to describe
the person who brought the Ecstasy despite the fact that both broke the law and
alcohol is significantly more dangerous to users than is Ecstasy. Constructivists,
therefore, argue that there is no inherent reason why drug use should be
deviant or illegal. Rather, these social
and legal characteristics are generated by particular groups in particular societies
at particular times.
Although constructivists focus
on norms, they differ from social deviance analysts because they believe that norms
are constantly being challenged and reformed. Consequently, “deviance” is not
an explanatory category. It is a descriptor with negative connotations that
reflects the views of the person using it rather than an objective concept that
promotes the understanding of a phenomenon or a powerful causal argument.
Understanding why alcohol is legal and Ecstasy illegal requires examining ourselves
more so than the substances themselves, according to the Constructivist
perspective.
Users consume, producers
produce and traffickers sell because they conceive of their actions as
acceptable, not because they conceive of themselves as failures. From a
constructivist point of view there are no “bad” norms from the perspective of
those who promote them.[8] One
needs to understand the competition among norms to explain behavior. That
competition revolves around norm entrepreneurs and institutions.
Since ideas are constantly
available constructivists look to norm entrepreneurs to explain which ideas
become group norms. The entrepreneur believes in the idea and because of it she
provides information and develops a coalition to support these ideas. As this
coalition gains adherents the idea becomes accepted and, if successful,
institutionalized into group norms. These norms become internalized, with group
members guiding their behavior by them subconsciously.
The constructivist perspective forces us to deal with
the fact that drug policy is partly the result of our subjective perceptions
about the different substances, about consumers and non-consumers, as well as
the entire range of people involved in the drug phenomenon. But this
perspective has its own fundamental weakness: we have not yet developed
methodologies with sufficient social scientific rigor to determine the origins
of these perspectives in individuals or to test for the existence and power of
specific perspectives in explaining behavior and policy preferences. Constructivist analysts need to develop
arguments about when these idea entrepreneurs will arise, the direction of
their policy prescriptions and the chances for their success in building a
coalition that is sufficiently powerful to influence policy.
A
third analytic perspective, Political Economy, builds an argument explaining human
behavior by emphasizing the rationality of choices made by individuals. A
number of key concepts define a political economy approach to analyzing the
behavior of humans and of the communities they create.[9]
Actors are assumed to be instrumentally rational and egoist. This claim simply means that
individuals, groups, or states (actors) want what they themselves define as
best (egoist) and act in a manner that is designed to achieve it (rational).
Being instrumentally rational does not imply that an actor knows all the
relevant information, but rather that given the information an actor has, she
chooses to do what appears to her will help achieve her goals. Choice thus plays a key role in a
political economy approach.
The existence of choice
implies options (in models of strategic interaction these are called
“strategies”) and some ranking among those options by the actor. Choices are
perceived by the actor to produce different outcomes, and the actor makes a
choice based on how those outcomes correspond to what the actor desires. Actors
are assumed to have preferences concerning
the rankings among outcomes; that is, they prefer the outcomes, not the options
themselves. Taking psychoactive substances is thus a strategy to achieve an
outcome (e.g., dancing all night, getting instant gratification, relaxing, etc)
that is preferred to the other outcomes that are expected (e.g., getting too
tired or drunk to dance, watching TV alone, etc.) if one does not take the
drug.
A political economy approach
assumes that actors usually engage each other in situations characterized by strategic interaction: the outcome of
their interaction is the combined result of what each wants and does. This
means that neither actor might have chosen the outcome she got. Rather, the outcome came about because of
choices both made while anticipating what the other might choose. For example, a
person at the party might consume a tainted drug rather than simply Ecstasy and
become critically ill instead of dancing into the night, an outcome which was
not the intent of either the student or the policymakers who made Ecstasy
illegal.
In addition to the individuals involved, a
political economy approach takes account of the institutional context within
which their action occurs. Institutions refer
to rules that guide behavior; they can be explicit (as in the case of laws) or
implicit (as in cultural, social or group norms) and they can be embodied in formal
organizations or simply constitute the social context within which actors
interact. These rules provide incentives,
both positive and negative, for certain types of behaviors. Rational egoistic
actors consider these costs and benefits in evaluating outcomes and choosing
their actions.
This element of choice holds
whether actors behave in accordance with the law or act outside it, thus
becoming “criminals.” It is also true for addicts, in the sense that the first
use of a substance was a choice influenced by a variety of positive and
negative incentives. It is important to
realize that since the dependency rate for illegal substances is well below 25%
for most substances, addicts’ first decision to use drugs can be made, with
some rational justification, in the belief that they will not become addicts. In
addition, some addicts are able to respond to decreased availability or greater
risk by cutting back on consumption, even abstaining for months at a time.[10]
A political economy approach
to understanding why consumers consume, producers produce, traffickers traffic
and money launderers launder, thus focuses on understanding the choices
individuals confront and the incentives for choosing to consume, produce,
traffic and launder. The political
economy approach also allows us to move beyond the sterile debate about whether
drug consumption is demand or supply induced by providing a way of thinking
about how supply and demand are intimately related. A political economy
approach can also help us understand how countries respond to those facts. By recognizing that the distribution of
benefits and costs of different policy options across different actors
influences preferences and behavior, we can gain a clearer understanding of the
different ways in which the same society treats distinct psychoactive
substances as well as how countries vary in their approach to the same
psychoactive substance. Policymakers respond strategically to the
preferences of the people who are institutionally empowered to select them, and
thus public policy has to be understood in terms of political influence and the
distribution of costs and benefits of alternative policies.
Like all other analytic perspectives, political economy approaches also have weaknesses. Preferences are assumed or derived after the fact by reasoning backward. For example, analysts might say, “given this strategic context and this outcome, the actors must have valued these choices above these other options.” This problem with preference formation occurs because the political economy approach provides no way of understanding how these rational individuals determine their value structures. As a shortcut, individuals are assumed to want more rather than less and what they want is often assumed to be material in nature. [Think it would be useful to use your case again to show concretely the weaknesses of the PE approach.] But even if a student wanted to dance more at the dorm party, their value structure might lead them to reject both alcohol and Ecstasy despite the impact on his ability to dance.
Our final analytic approach, Realism, focuses on explaining how domestic public policy relates to a global market as well how a government behaves internationally. Consequently, it will be of interest primarily in Part II of this text when we turn to explaining public policy.
Realism assumes that international politics occurs in a context in which no set of rules is binding on all states (a condition of “anarchy”) and thus subjugation or elimination of states is a constant possibility. This context forces states to mistrust each other on matters that could affect their ability to survive, thrive and make policy decisions that respond to their own best interests. As a result, power is the chief currency in international politics, and cooperation on important matters will be limited to immediate self interest and therefore brief and unlikely to be fully adhered to by any nation.[11]
A Realist perspective on drug policy might be useful
in understanding why the
Realist perspectives, nevertheless, cannot explain when a state will determine that drugs constitute a significant threat to national interests. An historical and comparative examination of drug policy clearly indicates that not all states agree that drugs are such a threat and that those which see such a threat today did not perceive one at an earlier point in their history. Realist hypotheses about drug policy are only useful once we discover the domestic policy preferences of individual states. At that point Realists perspectives can compete with social deviance analysts (“rogue states violate international norms), social constructivists (“ideas become institutionalized and guide behavior without a cost/benefit analysis) and political economists (“international institutions affect the costs and benefits of different policy strategies”).
Chapters in the text discuss why we view people located at distinct points in the system differently, but we inevitably possess a view of the overall system (from consumer to supplier, producer and money-launderer) itself. Readers may protest that we have multiple views about the phenomenon, not just one. True, but inevitably, one conceptualization will dominate our perceptions. We may recognize the existence of other issues, but they will be interpreted within the context set by our fundamental conceptualization.
Thus those who view the issue from a social deviance perspective may recognize the need for personal health treatment, but will insist that it be administered either in prison or under court supervision. The students consuming Ecstasy should be arrested; if rehabilitation is to occur it should be under the auspices of the criminal justice system (e.g., under probation). A constructivist and public health advocate could insist on ignoring questions of legality, economics and liberty and focus instead on the need to provide clean needles or chemical analyses of substances at RAVE parties. Political economists who also favor public health provision would argue that one cannot ignore the incentives provided by the legal system and the market if needle exchange or chemical analysis programs are to be cost effective.
In addition to an understanding of the major different analytical approaches to the drug issue, it is important that we have a common understanding of what science can tell us before proceeding to detailed comparative analysis of drug policy. If there is undisputed scientific confirmation concerning what these substances do and how to control them then the terms of debate around drug policy will be dramatically informed by logic and evidence.
The consumption of
pyschoactive substances, in legal or illegal form, is a common phenomenon in
the
A psychoactive substance influences communication channels in the brain. Different types of drugs influence different channels, thereby producing distinct impacts on feelings, experience, and behavior. These immediate effects are consistent across episodes as long as the substance is not adulterated, although the quantity used may have to increase because of greater tolerance over time. People can, therefore, choose substances to produce the feelings they desire, at least in the short term. Some long-term effects that the user may not intend are well known (e.g., addiction), but the probabilities of developing those effects are largely unknown. Still other effects remain the subject of scientific debate,
There is disagreement
concerning the exact process by which these substances influence people,
but there is a strong consensus among scientists that different substances
affect different neurotransmitters. For example, hallucinogens like LSD cause
their effects by disrupting the interaction of nerve cells and the neurotransmitter
serotonin, which affects “the control of behavioral, perceptual, and regulatory
systems, including mood, hunger, body temperature, sexual behavior, muscle
control, and sensory perception.” Disassociative substances such as PCP and
ketamine influence the neurotransmitter glutamate which
affects “perceptions of pain, responses to the environment, and memory.”[12]
Still other psychoactive substances produce artificially high levels of the
neurotransmitter “dopamine,” which communicates pleasure to the brain.[13]
Pyschoactive substances are
found in some rather common foods and drink whose use is not legally regulated
(for example, chocolate and coffee). Such substances are also present in
products whose use is regulated by age (for example, tobacco and alcohol) or
medical license (prescription drugs). And of course, these substances are found
in the “drugs” that most societies began to proscribe early in the 20th
century (cocaine and heroin), or shortly after they were developed (Ecstasy, methamphetamine,
etc.).
A majority of people around
the globe probably chooses not to indulge in the use of pyschoactive substances
that are illegal in their countries; still, as Chapter Two demonstrates,
hundreds of millions of people choose to try illegal drugs at some point in
their lifetime. It is also clear that there
is great diversity in the product-specific characteristics of substances (some
put you up, others make you feel down) as well as in the social and individual
traits of their users. (e.g., some are rich, others poor, some have many life
opportunities ahead of them, others few).
“Addiction” and
“Dependency” are concepts that, while not having clear scientific meaning and
applying to only a minority of drug consumers, permeate the views most people
have of the drug phenomenon. Illegal drugs are widely believed to be particularly
harmful to their users and intimately linked to violent crime because of their
addictive qualities. Even NIDA’s web site usually leads a description of an
illegal substance by noting that it is “addictive.”
The American Society of Addictive Medicine (ASAM)
advocates a formal definition of addiction, which differs from physical
dependence. “The importance of maintaining this distinction has been
highlighted in recent years by the emergence of the pain management movement,
whose practitioners point out that in some situations (e.g., severe
post-operative pain or pain associated with terminal cancer), it is clinically
appropriate to give a patient medications at a dose and for a period of time
sufficient to produce physical dependence. However, this alone does not lead to
addiction, which always has a psychological component and is accompanied by a
constellation of distinctive behaviors.”[14]
INSERT BOX WITH
ASAM TERMS
|
Glossary
of Select Terms Used in the ASAM PPC-2R [Note:
an asterisk denotes a definition that has been formally adopted by
ASAM's Board of Directors.] *Abuse. Harmful
use of a specific psychoactive substance.
The term also applies to one category of psychoactive substance-related
disorders. While recognizing that
"abuse" is part of present diagnostic terminology, ASAM recommends
that an alternative term be found for this purpose because of the pejorative
connotations of the word "abuse." *Addiction. A primary, chronic, neurobiologic disorder,
with genetic, psychosocial and environmental factors influencing its
development and manifestations. It is
characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive
use, continued use despite harm, and craving. Alcoholism. A
general but not diagnostic term, typically used to describe alcohol
dependence, but sometimes used more broadly to describe a variety of problems
related to the use of beverage alcohol. *Dependence. Used in
three different ways: (1) physical
dependence, a physiological state of adaptation to a specific psychoactive
substance characterized by the emergence of a withdrawal syndrome during
abstinence, which may be relieved in total or in part by readministration of
the substance; (2) psychological dependence, a subjective sense of need for a
specific psychoactive substance, either for its positive effects or to avoid
negative effects associated with its abstinence; and (3) one category of
psychoactive substance use disorder. |
There is both
historical and scientific evidence that most users of psychoactive substances
become neither dependent on nor addicted to those substances. Even in the case
of heroin, a study by the
This evidence has
spurred a debate concerning the existence of “addictive” substances– if most
users do not become addicted, then the cause of addiction cannot be the
substance itself.[15] During
the late 19th century this variation in addiction outcomes was
noticed and explained in crude form by reference to “addictive personalities.”[16] Modern
science has discarded the notion of an addictive personality, focusing much
attention on genes instead. In the case of alcohol, probably the most studied
pyschoactive substance, attention has focused on familial genetic
“dispositions” to alcoholism. This approach has been found to account for as
much, or as little, depending on one’s point of view, as 40% of the variation
in alcoholism outcomes.[17] Yet
that still leaves more than half of the variation in a drinker’s alcoholism to
derive from neither the substance itself, nor the familial genetic links
studied so far.
As we shall
encounter again and again throughout this book, our scientific knowledge about
these substances and the links between substance and behavior are too
inconclusive to provide significant guidance in the debates. What the scientific evidence does allow us to
say at this point is that addiction and dependence are not caused by the
substance itself, but develop from a combination of pyschoactive substance,
genes and the social context within which the consumer lives and uses the
substance.
Table
1.1
Substance
Use and Dependency Rates
|
Drug
Category |
Proportion
That Have Ever Used (%) |
Proportion
of Users That Ever Became Dependent (%) |
|
Tobacco |
76 |
32 |
|
Alcohol |
92 |
15 |
|
Marijuana (including hashish) |
46 |
9 |
|
Anxiolytics (including sedatives and
hypnotic drugs) |
13 |
9 |
|
Cocaine |
16 |
17 |
|
Heroin |
2 |
23 |
Source: Janet E.
Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., Editors, Marijuana
and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base Institute of Medicine, National
Academy of Sciences, 1999, Table 3.4, based on material from Anthony --------
1994. http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/notice.html
The final tool we
will need in order to formulate an understanding of the “drug problem” is a
model or framework of how all the elements involved interact.
The consumer and producer are mutually dependent; one could not exist
without the other. And since consumers are rarely located close enough to
producers that one could simply meet the other and complete the sale, some type
of transportation network must also exist. Producers and transporters in turn
generally need access to a variety of inputs (labor, chemicals, weapons and
perhaps corrupt officials in the case of illegal products, etc.) in order to
produce and transport. Hence, the providers of those inputs also need to be
considered. In the case of illegal products, since participants want to enjoy
their profits and spending “dirty” money is risky, money launderers play an
exceedingly key role. We need, therefore, a systematic way to think about how a
variety of roles are integrated in order to produce a product and sell it to
the consumer.
The dominant models we have for analyzing the drug trade fail to view all these roles as part of a system whose purpose is to make a profit; in short, as a business. The “balloon” model (“you punch it here, it pops out there’) is an expression of frustration which suggests that, short of ‘popping’ it (ending the drug trade through an overwhelming use of resources), we have no impact on how much air is inside the balloon (or how widespread and active the drug trade is). This view can hardly help us understand why decades of effort, billons of dollars, millions of prisoners, and thousands of deaths have failed to “pop” or at least significantly deflate the drug balloon. Paradoxically, it also spurs us to keep trying because we believe that if we can just get the air out of the balloon, we will destroy it.
The “organized crime” model provides important
insights into how a major portion of this system functions, but it doesn’t help
us understand the creation and extent of the system itself. Organized crime can
develop in some parts of the system when certain characteristics are present
(chiefly high value and illegality). Most analyses that discuss the “business
of drugs” mean precisely this organization of crime. But Mexican marijuana
sales in the
A “systems” approach is
clearly needed. The
A commodity system
“encompasses all the participants in the production, processing, and marketing
of a single farm product, including farm suppliers, farmers, storage operators,
processors, wholesalers, and retailers involved in a commodity flow from initial
inputs to the final consumer. It also includes all the institutions and
arrangements that affect and coordinate the successive stages of a commodity
flow, such as the government, trade associations, cooperatives, …financial
partners, financial entities, transport groups…”[20]
Although the psychoactive commodity systems that will be the main focus of our
study are illegal, government remains an actor in the system. Governments
respond to those people or groups that help them gain office (a “selectorate”),
which in a democracy is the electorate. The selectorate and their government
thus establish the set of rules or laws within which the participants seek to
operate and governmental authorities pursue or tax them.
The system operates on three
levels. First is the total environment, including public policy. At this level
the chief distinction we will make is whether the market for a psychoactive
substance is legal or illegal. Another level is specific to the substance
itself; cocaine is produced and trafficked in ways that are different from
Ecstasy. Finally, one can use the system
to understand the behavior of specific individuals, cartels and networks as
they seek to carry out and expand their business.
The strength of the
agribusiness commodity system model lies in its “integrative” character. From
the perspective of a manager of a firm located in the vertical structure of
agribusiness, the model provides a way of visualizing his operation within the
system of which the firm forms a part. The model also suggests that public
policies will be more effective if developed in terms of the total system and if the implications of
the policy for all the segments of the system are understood. “A public policy
maker cannot make a policy for one segment…without affecting the whole
structure, which will in turn affect the segment that once was viewed in
isolation.”[21]
We can readily think of
traders, producers, money launderers and everyone else engaged in the
phenomenon of supplying the consumer of psychoactive substances as business
people in competition with each other to supply a product within a legal
framework that proscribes their business. This business process produces an
integration of functions from production and its needs, through the
distribution process all the way to retail, where the consumer sends a signal
back through the system by purchasing the substance.
Figures 1 and 2 diagram the
general psychoactive substance commodity system for legal and illegal
substances, respectively. Students should study the systems well, noting their
similarities and differences. We will investigate each phase in great detail in
subsequent chapters and constantly refer to the place of different participants
in the system as a whole, whether that system be legal or illegal.
Figure 1 Here
Figure 2 Here
The
Pyschoactive Substance Commodity System
Illegal
Product
A systems approach suggests
that before attacking a specific part of the system public policymakers should
ensure that alternative means for the adversary to achieve his goals are not
available or that their costs exceed the benefits of circumvention. For
example, in the 1990s the
Thus policy changes are
routinely met by market adaptation that defeats the policy. It’s easy to
sympathize with policy makers who are frustrated, and revert to the image of
popping the balloon as a magical solution. Yet experts on free enterprise and
the market would expect just such an outcome to a government policy narrowly
targeted at isolated pieces of a complex and global system.
The different analytical
perspectives, combined with the organizing framework of a commodity system
illuminate the puzzles and contradictions of this phenomenon of consumption of
psychoactive substances and associated behaviors over time and across
countries. The perspectives do not lead to any one preferred public policy,
because policy choices depend upon values, perceptions and the ability to
influence the distribution of the costs and benefits that attend all policy
options.
Instead, the comparisons
among approaches presented in this text help the reader, whether college student,
expert on different aspects of the topic, concerned layperson or policymaker,
to think logically and systematically about relevant questions that should be
answered by anyone interested in public policy on drugs. Chief among these
questions is how a society should respond to the challenges raised by the
combination of respect for individual liberty, protection of society and the
existence of pyschoactive substances. As the student will learn, there are no
easy answers to what is the “best” policy to pursue in this area, but some
analyses force us to examine and evaluate important questions, while other
approaches deny their very existence.
Study
Questions: These are intended to
provoke reflection rather than simple recall of material presented in the
chapter.
1.
Critique the
argument in the chapter concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the balloon
analogy, organized crime and commodity system models for understanding why drug
use persists in the
2.
Some
advocates of legalization argue that because drugs are used despite the
prohibitions, we should recognize this fact and legalize the practice.
Prostitution, euthanasia and suicide are prohibited but practiced. If we
legalize drugs, should we legalize these other currently prohibited but common
practices as well? How about child pornography and slavery? What questions
would you want to ask before deciding?
[1] .
Christopher A. Szechenyi, “Ecstasy bust leads to
[2] . Kaplan and Johnson, pp. 3-10
[3] . book citations
[4] .
[5] .
Philip C. Baridon, Addiction, Crime and
Social Policy
[6] .
cite studies comparing social origins of
[7] . John Gerard Ruggie, “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge” International Organization 52:4 Autumn 1998 p. 857
[8] . Finnimore and Sikkink, p. 892
[9] .
cf., David W. Rasmussen, Bruce L. Benson, H. Naci Mocan, “The Economics of
Substance Abuse in Context: Can Economics be Part of an Integrated Theory of
Drug Use?” Journal of Drug Issues
28(3) 575-592 1998 ; Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Principles of International Politics ; and Kenneth A. Shepsle and
Mark S. Bonchek, Analyzing Politics:
Rationality, Behavior and Institutions
[10] .
[11] . Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations; Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Relations ; John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of Institutionalism” International Security
[12] . Hallucinogens
Addiction Information at Support Systems Provided by the National Institute on
Drug Abuse http://www.drug-rehabilitation.com/hallucinogens.htm
accessed
[13] . http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/hallucinogens/halluc2.html; Alan I. Leshner and George F. Koob, “Drugs of Abuse and the Brain” Proceedings of the Association of American Physicians Vol. 111, Number 2, pp. 99-108
[14]
. Bonnie B. Wilford, Editor, ASAM Publications, email communication,
[15] . Harvard Magazine
[16] .
Jerald W. Cloyd, Drugs and Information
Control: The Role of Men and Manipulation in the Control of Drug Trafficking
[17] . UCSD Med School Professor
[18] .
Paul Tough, “The OxyContin Underground” New York Times Magazine
[19] . Quotes on the system are taken from Ray A. Goldberg and Leonard M. Wilson, Agribusiness Management for Developing Countries –Latin America Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger 1974 pp. 3-5
[20] . Goldberg and Wilson, Agribusiness Management p. P. 4
[21] . Goldberg and Wilson, Agribusiness Management p. P. 6