Nov-Dec Drugs Part 2

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs
Table of Contents
Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.
Legalization Affirmative
THESIS: For too long, the War On Drugs has ineffectively targeted supply-side approaches and canabalized billions in funding. Efforts at prevention were focused under the same war mentality that produced a stigma against all drug users. Most often, this stigma (together with poverty) discouraged drug users from seeking treatment. This Affirmative case argues that only by reversing the prohibition of drugs can we free up the necessary resources for a broad-based public health approach that emphasizes treatment. The use and abuse of drugs has touched most everyones lives in some way or another. In our frustration and fear, we tend to lashout at drug abusers as undesirable elements of society. To be sure, drug abuse is a devastating factoring in society todayone that destroys families, whole communities, and even destabilizes governments and national economies. However, if we just keep throwing everyone in jail, the problem continues to grow ever more out of control. Therefore, I stand Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treat as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. I begin with a discussion of the two operative terms in this resolution: public health and criminal justice. Public health refers to many facets of society Australia's Health, 1996, public health, Appendix 4 Glossary, Accessed 10-12-2010, http://www.aihw.gov.au/ ublications/aus/ah96/ah96-x04.html One of the efforts organised by society to protect, promote, and restore the people's health. It is the combination of sciences, skills, and beliefs that are directed to the maintenance and improvement of the health of all the people through collective or social actions. The programs, services, and institutions involved emphasise the prevention of disease and the health needs of the population as a whole. Public health activities change with changing technology and social values, but the goals remain the same: to reduce the amount of disease, premature death, and diseaseproduced discomfort and disability in the population. Public health is thus a social institution, a discipline, and a practice. Criminal justice refers to all aspects of crime and subsequent punishment US Legal, 2010, Criminal Justice, http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-justice/, Accessed 10-12-2010, Criminal justice is a broad term covering topics such as the procedure by which criminal conduct is investigated, evidence gathered, arrests made, charges brought, defenses raised, trials conducted, sentences rendered and punishment carried out. Research studies issues such as examinations of adult and juvenile offender characteristics, sentencing trends, correctional facility overcrowding, justice system expenditures, treatment programs, minorities in the juvenile justice system, juvenile court cases, criminal history records, and much more. The important distinction in the resolution lies the choice between addressing drug addiction as a health issue that affects the entire community and nation, or as a criminal issue where we lock em up and throw away the key! As such, I will defend the social welfare as a value. WordIQ.com, 2010, Social welfare Definition, http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Social_welfare, Accessed 1012-2010 Social welfare can be taken to mean the welfare or well-being of a society. In economics, the utility of people considered in aggregate. For social welfare in the economic sense, see welfare economics and social welfare function. -the provision of a wide range of social services, for the benefit of individual citizens. This usage is closely related to the idea of the welfare state. Social welfare should be distinguished from welfare. In the United States, welfare is sometimes a synonym for the provision of financial aid in the form of social security. Social welfare may be associated with social work services. To determine what constitutes social welfare, I will employ simple utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs Legalization Affirmative
OBSERVATION ONE: THE PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH A. PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACHES EMPHASIZE TREATMENT FOR THE GREATER GOOD Gez Bevan, University of Sunderland, Faculty of Applied Sciences, 16 December 2009, Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says, Substance Abuse Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/21 A public health approach to drug treatment emphasises the need for drug users in or accessing treatment, to reduce their harmful drug use, reduce drug use related risks such as sepsis and overdose and stay alive for longer. However a public health perspective in relation to problem drug use isn't always either apparent or readily understood and to that end there is still a significant need to continue the arguments and debate that treatment and interventions for problem and dependent drug users need to extend beyond an individualistic approach. For the purposes of discussion in this article public and population health will be used interchangeably. B. PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACHES REDUCE ADDICTION, CRIME AND RECIDIVISM Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority, http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010 Treatment decreases drug problems, crime, and recidivism while improving health conditions. Treatment also saves money, and in todays climate of growing fiscal constraints, it is imperative to re-evaluate spending priorities. Alcohol and other drug problems place a huge burden on our economyresulting in high health care costs, productivity losses, and other expenses associated with crime and accidents (Belenko et al., 2005). A large portion of this economic burden falls on state justice systems (Join Together, 2006). OBSERVATION TWO: THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACH A. A LAW ENFORCEMENT APPROACH WILL NEVER STOP THE DRUG PROBLEM Martha Mendoza, Staff Writer, May 14, 2010, In war on drugs, Obama refocuses as public health fight, USA Today, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-14-drugs-war_N.htm Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides. "Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune." From the beginning, lawmakers debated fiercely whether law enforcement no matter how well funded and well trained could ever defeat the drug problem. B. CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES UNDERMINE PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES Alex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdf By contrast, public health policies, such as drug treatment and prevention measures, have played a secondary role in our drug strategy. This has led, for example, to a dramatic gap in drug treatment with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration estimating that in 2007 only 17.8% of persons who needed drug treatment received it, a number that has remained largely unchanged throughout the decade. Indeed, drug war advocates have actually opposed some state-level treatment initiatives particularly those that offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration or remove certain classes of drug offenders from the criminal justice system on the grounds that they would send a soft on drugs message.
West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs Legalization Affirmative
OBSERVATION THREE: LEGALIZATION IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ALTERNATIVE A. LEGALIZATION TREATS ADDICTION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN, INSTEAD OF PAINTING PEOPLE AS IMMORAL CRIMINALS Johann Hari, Staff Writer, June 13, 2010, How Can America's 'War on Drugs' Succeed When Prohibition Laws Failed?, The Independent/UK, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/13-6 Ending drug prohibition seems like a huge heave, just as ending alcohol prohibition did. But when it is gone, when the drug gangs are a bankrupted memory, when drug addicts are treated not as immoral criminals but as ill people needing healthcare, who will grieve? American history is pocked by utopian movements that prefer glib wishthinking over a hard scrutiny of reality, but they always crest and crash in the end. There will always be millions of people who want to get drunk or stoned or high. The only question is whether their needs are met to by mafias and militias, or by legal and regulated businesses. Okrent's dazzling history leaves us with one whisky-sharp insight above all others. The War on Alcohol and the War on Drugs failed because they were, beneath all the blather, a war on human nature. B. THE SOONER WE LEGALIZE DRUGS, THE SOONER WE CAN OVERCOME ADDICTION Mark Thornton, Senior Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Tibor R. Machan, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor emeritus of philosophy at Auburn University, April 1991, The Re-legalization of Drugs, The Freeman, 41:4, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-re-legalization-of-drugs/#, Accessed 1010-2010 Legalization has been labeled immoral by prohibitionists, but nothing could be further from the truth. Reliance on individual initiative and responsibility is no sin. It is not only the key to success in the battle against drug abuse, it is also a reaffirmation of traditional American values. How can someone make a moral choice when one is in fact forced into a particular course of action? How is the fabric of society strengthened when we rely on guns and prisons to enforce behavior rather than letting behavior be determined by individual responsibility and family upbringing? The sooner we move toward re-legalization, the sooner we can begin the process of healing the scars of prohibition, solving the problems of drug abuse, and curing this nations addiction to drug laws. C. STUDIES PROVE, LEGALIZING DRUGS WILL NOT LEAD TO A MASSIVE INCREASE IN USE Johann Hari, Staff Writer, June 13, 2010, How Can America's 'War on Drugs' Succeed When Prohibition Laws Failed?, The Independent/UK, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/13-6 Many people understandably worry that legalization would cause a huge rise in drug use - but the facts suggest this isn't the case. Portugal decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs in 2001, and - as a study by Glenn Greenwald for the American Enterprise Institute found - it had almost no effect at all. Indeed, drug use fell a little among the young. Similarly, Okrent says the end of alcohol prohibition "made it harder, not easier, to get a drink... Now there were closing hours and age limits and Sunday blue laws, as well as a collection of geographic prosecriptions that kept bars or package stories distant from schools, churches and hospitals." People didn't drink much more. The only change was that they didn't have to turn to armed criminal gangs for it, and they didn't end up swigging poison. D. REPEALING DRUG PROHIBITION REDUCES CRIME AND ALLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT TO FOCUS ON TERRORISM AND VIOLENT CRIME The CATO Institute, 2009, The War on Drugs, Chapter 33, CATO Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Ed., Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdf Repeal of prohibition would take the astronomical profits out of the drug business and destroy the drug kingpins who terrorize parts of our cities. It would reduce crime even more dramatically than did the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Not only would there be less crime; reform would also free federal agents to concentrate on terrorism and espionage and free local police agents to concentrate on robbery, burglary, and violent crime. The war on drugs has lasted longer than Prohibition, longer than the Vietnam War. But there is no light at the end of this tunnel. Prohibition has failed, again, and should be repealed, again.
5 Legalization Affirmative
DRUG ADDICTION IS A DISEASE

1. ADDICTION IS A DISEASE THAT REQUIRES LONG-TERM TREATMENT National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Because drug abuse and addiction have so many dimensions and disrupt so many aspects of an individuals life, treatment is not simple. Effective treatment programs typically incorporate many components, each directed to a particular aspect of the illness and its consequences. Addiction treatment must help the individual stop using drugs, maintain a drug-free lifestyle, and achieve productive functioning in the family, at work, and in society. Because addiction is a disease, people cannot simply stop using drugs for a few days and be cured. Most patients require long-term or repeated episodes of care to achieve the ultimate goal of sustained abstinence and recovery of their lives. 2. EVEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEES ADDICTION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH DISEASE James Wright, Staff Writer, July 15, 2010, Obama Drug Czar Says Drug Addiction is a Health Problem, Washington Informer, http://www.washingtoninformer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 4085:obama-drug-czar-says-drug-addiction-is-a-health-problem&catid=50:local&Itemid=113, Accessed 10-9-2010 President Obama 's chief adviser on national drug policy said that the administration has made a shift change on dealing with the problem of drug addiction, arguing that it is a health issue not one for the criminal justice system. "Drugs are a public health problem as much as a public safety issue," said Richard Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, otherwise known as the drug czar. "Addiction is a disease and this disease can be treated." 3. NOT TREATING ADDICTION LIKE A DISEASE GUARANTEES A RELAPSE National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Addiction is a complex but treatable disease that affects brain function and behavior. Drugs of abuse alter the brains structure and function, resulting in changes that persist long after drug use has ceased. This may explain why drug abusers are at risk for relapse even after long periods of abstinence and despite the potentially devastating consequences. 4. BECAUSE IT IS A DISEASE, ADDICTION REQUIRES A TREATMENT APPROACH National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Like other chronic diseases, addiction can be managed successfully. Treatment enables people to counteract addictions powerful disruptive effects on the brain and behavior and to regain control of their lives. The chronic nature of the disease means that relapsing to drug abuse is not only possible but also likely, with relapse rates similar to those for other well-characterized chronic medical illnessessuch as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma (see figure, Comparison of Relapse Rates Between Drug Addiction and Other Chronic Illnesses)that also have both physiological and behavioral components. 5. RESEARCH PROVES DRUG ADDICTION IS A CHRONIC BRAIN DISEASE National Institute on Drug Abuse, January 13, 2009, Drug Abusing Offenders Not Getting Treatment They Need in Criminal Justice System, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/newsroom/09/NR1-13.html The report emphasizes that addiction is a chronic brain disease: that repeated drug exposure in those who are vulnerable triggers brain changes that result in the compulsive drug use and loss of control over drug-related behaviors that characterize addiction. "Viewing addiction as a disease does not remove the responsibility of the individual," said Volkow. "It highlights the responsibility of the addicted person to get drug treatment and society's responsibility to make treatment available."
DRUG ADDICTION IS A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM

1. ALMOST 20 MILLION PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE ADDICTED TO DRUGS James Wright, Staff Writer, July 15, 2010, Obama Drug Czar Says Drug Addiction is a Health Problem, Washington Informer, http://www.washingtoninformer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 4085:obama-drug-czar-says-drug-addiction-is-a-health-problem&catid=50:local&Itemid=113, Accessed 10-9-2010 Statistics compiled by the Mayo Clinic based in Rochester, Minn., show that 19.5 million people over the age of 12 use illegal drugs that include marijuana, cocaine, heroin and others, in the United States. Mayo statistics estimate that 19,000 deaths occur from people who are addicted to illegal drugs. It has been widely reported by various medical and social service organizations that employed drug abusers cost their employers about twice as much in medical and worker compensation claims as their drug-free co-workers. 2. DRUG ABUSE AND ADDICTION ARE PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Because drug abuse and addiction are major public health problems, a large portion of drug treatment is funded by local, State, and Federal governments. Private and employer-subsidized health plans also may provide coverage for treatment of addiction and its medical consequences. Unfortunately, managed care has resulted in shorter average stays, while a historical lack of or insufficient coverage for substance abuse treatment has curtailed the number of operational programs. The recent passage of parity for insurance coverage of mental health and substance abuse problems will hopefully improve this state of affairs. 3. DRUG ABUSE IS PUBLIC ENEMY #1 Martha Mendoza, Staff Writer, May 14, 2010, In war on drugs, Obama refocuses as public health fight, USA Today, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-14-drugs-war_N.htm "This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive." 4. DRUG ABUSE OVERBURDENS HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND STATE BUDGETS Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority, http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010 Alcohol and other drug use, abuse, and dependence have a huge direct and indirect economic impact on society through health care expenditures, lost earnings, and expenses associated with crime and injury. The heaviest economic burden of alcohol and other drug problems falls on states and localities, funding public programs like Medicaid and child welfare systems (CASA, 2001; Join Together, 2006). 5. DRUG ADDICTION UNDERMINES PUBLIC HEALTH National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Addiction is often more than just compulsive drug takingit can also produce far-reaching consequences. For example, drug abuse and addiction increase a persons risk for a variety of other mental and physical illnesses related to a drug-abusing lifestyle or the toxic effects of the drugs themselves. Additionally, a wide range of dysfunctional behaviors can result from drug abuse and interfere with normal functioning in the family, the workplace, and the broader community.
PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS MORE EFFECTIVE

1. TREATMENT UNDER A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE CREATES AN IMPERATIVE FOR MULTIFACETED UNDERSTANDING AND BETTER SOLUTIONS Gez Bevan, University of Sunderland, Faculty of Applied Sciences, 16 December 2009, Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says, Substance Abuse Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/21 The Public Health imperative behind substance misuse treatments is best demonstrated when the rationale for drug treatment accepts that for many who receive treatment it is a chronic and frequently relapsing condition. The purpose behind treatment needs to move away from an individualistic approach to one which recognises drug users exist in many and varied relationships and as part of several communities, thus the health of populations becomes a pivotal part of the treatment rationale. A public health imperative for the delivery of drug treatments can be seen to be effective in minimising the harm associated with drug use, both for the individual and the communities they reside within. 2. TAKING A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH IS A SHARP TURN AWAY FROM ENFORCEMENT Eli Sanders, senior staff writer, July-August, 2009, The Last Drug Czar, The American Prospect, Accessed 10-132010 via Lexis Nexis If, as Kerlikowske is saying, the government now believes that drugs cannot be defeated in a warlike manner, then other, long-neglected tools must be pulled off the shelf. In keeping with what Obama has said about basing federal policy on evidence and sound science, Kerlikowske says he wants to focus more on using proven public-health methods to treat drug addicts, curb the harm they do to themselves and their communities, and combat drug use in general. To make it all politically palatable, this type of change is being presented as a shift in emphasis and being compared--like everything these days--to a slow change in the course of an ocean liner, a change that won't really be noticed until a long time in the future. But given the path we've been on for so long, it is potentially something far more significant: a sharp left turn in terms of the perspective from which the drug problem is approached. 3. TREATMENT APPROACHES ARE MORE COST EFFECTIVE THAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Substance abuse costs our Nation over one half-trillion dollars annually, and treatment can help reduce these costs. Drug addiction treatment has been shown to reduce associated health and social costs by far more than the cost of the treatment itself. Treatment is also much less expensive than its alternatives, such as incarcerating addicted persons. For example, the average cost for 1 full year of methadone maintenance treatment is approximately $4,700 per patient, whereas 1 full year of imprisonment costs approximately $24,000 per person. 4. EVERY $1 INVESTED IN TREATMENT IS $4-$7 IN REDUCED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf According to several conservative estimates, every $1 invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft. When savings related to health care are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1. Major savings to the individual and to society also stem from fewer interpersonal conicts; greater workplace productivity; and fewer drug-related accidents, including overdoses and deaths.
ONLY TREATMENT WORKS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH

1. PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACHES EMPHASIZE TREATMENT AND HARM REDUCTION Gez Bevan, University of Sunderland, Faculty of Applied Sciences, 16 December 2009, Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says, Substance Abuse Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/21 So what exactly is a public health perspective in relation to problem drug use? The primary focus is one of reducing harm amongst identified populations, and arguably the best way of achieving this is by minimising risk. Harm reduction can broadly be argued to be a range of policies, programmes and interventions aimed at reducing the harm caused by problem drug use. A more precise definition from The International Harm Reduction Association is, "to reduce the health, social and economic harms associated with the use of psychoactive substances". Developing out of the rise of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in 1980s, harm reduction became a significant public health force putting the population health impact and consequences of problem drug use on the political agenda. 2. TREATMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH National Institute on Drug Abuse, January 13, 2009, Drug Abusing Offenders Not Getting Treatment They Need in Criminal Justice System, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/newsroom/09/NR1-13.html "Treating drug-abusing offenders improves public health and safety," said NIDA Director and report coauthor Dr. Nora D. Volkow. "In addition to the devastating social consequences for individuals and their families, drug abuse exacts serious health effects, including increased risk for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C; and treatment for addiction can help prevent their spread. Providing drug abusers with treatment also makes it less likely that these abusers will return to the criminal justice system." 3. PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF ANY DRUG STRATEGY Gez Bevan, University of Sunderland, Faculty of Applied Sciences, 16 December 2009, Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says, Substance Abuse Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/21 In the light of the evidence it is clear that problem drug use is frequently a chronic and relapsing condition, requiring ongoing management over a number of years or decades, where the consequences go beyond the individual and is a condition that can and does result in premature and avoidable deaths. There is a pressing need that public health principles should in fact be the foundation of all drug treatment interventions, and that investment in drug treatment is sound public health policy. 4. A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH RELIES ON SOUND SCIENCE AND BEHAVIOR ADAPTATION National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Indeed, scientific research and clinical practice demonstrate the value of continuing care in treating addiction, with a variety of approaches having been tested and integrated in residential and community settings. As we look toward the future, we will harness new research results on the influence of genetics and environment on gene function and expression (i.e., epigenetics), which are heralding the development of personalized treatment interventions. These findings will be integrated with current evidence supporting the most effective drug abuse and addiction treatments and their implementation, which are reflected in this guide.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION

1. CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES HAVE NO REAL EFFECT ON PUBLIC HEALTH Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority, http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010 While most attempts to decrease the number of drug-related offenses have often solely emphasized drug interdiction and incarceration, research has shown that they have had minimalif anyimpact on decreasing substance abuse or the violence associated with criminal activity by individuals with alcohol and other drug problems (Marlowe, 2002). Effectively addressing problems requires an integrated public health and public safety approach. 2. THE DRUG WAR HAS ONLY ESCALATED DRUG ABUSE Alex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdf Nearly 40 years after President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act into law and subsequently declared a war on drugs, it is difficult to describe our drug policy as anything other than a failure. Despite an annual federal budget of over $13 billion a number that does not include the costs of housing inmates who have been convicted of a drug offense our drug control strategy appears to have had little impact on drug use rates or drug availability. Nearly half of high school seniors have used an illegal drug by the time they graduate, more kids say it is easier for them to buy marijuana than alcohol, and a 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) study of 17 countries found that the United States had the highest rates of illegal drug use. 3. CRIMINAL JUSTICE WILL NEVER WORK WITHOUT REDUCING DEMAND Dr. John A. Howard, senior fellow of the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, April 16, 2010, Legalized Marijuana: A Pending Disaster, Heartland Institute White Paper, Accessed 10-12-2010, http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/27488.pdf The problem is that the market works. As long as there are millions of Americans wanting, and many craving, the drugs, the huge sums of money to be made in providing the drugs will attract a limitless number of individuals willing to risk their freedom and even their lives to deliver the goods. The government can go on forever increasing the number of Coast Guard boats, sniffing dogs, specially trained customs agents, reconnaissance planes, and law enforcement teams, but the drug trade will continue to flourish. 4. THE WAR ON DRUGS PROMOTES A MILITARISTIC APPROACH TO ADDICTION THAT FAILS Alex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdf The guiding tenet of the war on drugs strategy has been that vigorous enforcement of uncompromising criminal justice measures is the most effective method to reduce drug abuse and associated problems. This philosophy has manifested itself in an almost singular focus on supply-side initiatives, including the mass incarceration of drug offenders at all levels of offense severity in an effort to deter domestic drug manufacture and distribution, along with a militaristic approach to eradicating drug production abroad, and interdicting drugs at the border.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION

1. WE NEED TO FUNDAMENTALLY RETHINK THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACH TO DRUGS Nicholas D. Kristof, Op-Ed Columnist, August 20, 2009, Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?, New York Times, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20kristof.html Astonishingly, many politicians seem to think that we should lead the world in prisons, not in health care or education. The United States is anomalous among industrialized countries in the high proportion of people we incarcerate; likewise, we stand out in the high proportion of people who have no medical care and partly as a result, our health care outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are unusually poor. Its time for a fundamental re-evaluation of the criminal justice system, as legislation sponsored by Senator Jim Webb has called for, so that were no longer squandering money that would be far better spent on education or health. 2. DRACONIAN DRUG LAWS FAIL TO REDUCE DRUG PRICES OR PRODUCTION James Delingpole, Staff Writer, August 21, 2010, It is not drugs that cause the problems, it's the wholly unwinnable war on drugs; You Know It Makes Sense, The Spectator, p. 27. Yes, I agree, the poor do suffer dreadfully as a result of drugs - but again, as Macqueen's documentaries persuasively argued, this is mainly the result of prohibition laws devised by ignorant middle-class puritans. A young black or Latino dealer (and yes, no surprise: whites statistically get a much easier deal) in a New York housing project can earn $15,000 in a week dealing drugs; if he takes on a legal job befitting his education and training, the most he'll get is about a $100 a week. Now you see why, no matter how draconian America's drug laws have become (and they really are outrageously severe), they have not made the slightest difference to America's drugs economy. The incentives to deal - even were it a capital offence - are simply too great. 3. WE SHOULD LEGALIZE DRUGS AND SHIFT TO A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, January 13, 2010. The War on Drugs is a War on People, http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/the_war_on_drugs_is_a_war_on_people, Accessed 10-14-2010 Nothing matters to me more than ending the war on drugs and reducing our extraordinary overreliance on the criminal justice system. I want to make marijuana legal, decriminalize all drugs for personal use, and shift our drug policies to a health-based approach. The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners, ranking first in the per capita incarceration of our fellow citizens. We have increased the number of people behind bars from roughly 500,000 people in 1980 to 2.3 million today and altogether we now have over 7 million people under criminal justice supervision. 4. THE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL PROVES PROHIBITION WILL NEVER WORK Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; he served with the Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department, October 3, 2010, Only under legalization can we control drug use, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20101003_Only_ under_legalization_can_we_control_drug_use.html Education, social pressure, and smart regulation work. Prohibition doesn't. Never has, never will. Remember the "noble experiment" of banning alcohol? More and more cops are saying we need to legalize drugs - not because we think they are safe, but because only through legalization can we regulate, control, and keep them out of the hands of our children. Our greatest drug-related public health victory - virtually our only such victory - has been the dramatic reduction in cigarette smoking. And that was achieved through education and regulation. We didn't have to send a single person to jail.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS JUST INCREASE PRISON POPULATIONS

1. CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES RESULT IN HIGHER PRISON POPULATIONS Alex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdf Meanwhile, our punitive approach to drug policy has been a leading cause of the explosion in our prison population. In the last 20 years alone, the national prison population has nearly tripled, giving the United States the worlds highest reported incarceration rate. And, of the 2.3 million Americans in prison, approximately one quarter are there because of a drug offense. 2. HIGHER INCARCERATION RATES DO NOT CORRELATE TO LESS DRUG ABUSE OR VIOLENCE The CATO Institute, 2009, The War on Drugs, Chapter 33, CATO Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Ed., Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdf Those billions have had some effect. Total drug arrests are now more than 1.5 million a year. Since 1989, more people have been incarcerated for drug offenses than for all violent crimes combined. There are now about 480,000 drug offenders in jails and prisons, and about 50 percent of the federal prison population consists of drug offenders. Yet, as was the case during Prohibition, all the arrests and incarcerations havent stopped the use and abuse of drugs, or the drug trade, or the crime associated with black-market transactions. Cocaine and heroin supplies are up; the more our Customs agents interdict, the more smugglers import. And most tragic, the crime rate has soared. Despite the good news about crime in recent years, crime rates remain at high levels. 3. DRUG-BASED OVERCROWDING FOSTERS INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY Robert Leeson was a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow for 2006-2007 at the Hoover Institution, 2007, Addicted to the Drug War, Hoover Digest No. 1, Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6126 Eighty-five percent of parents in state prisons have a history of drug use, and a majority reported that they had used drugs in the month before their current offense. The prison industrial complex incarcerates more than a million parents of minor children: Between 2 percent and 3 percent of American children have a parent in jail. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that almost 10 percent of imprisoned mothers have left behind at least one child in out-of-home care. Since family breakdown is associated with intergenerational poverty and subsequent drug abuse, it would be preferable to deal with these issues within the health, rather than the criminal, system. Moreover, as the price of drugs falls, drug-related property crime would also fall. 4. THE CURRENT DRUG-RELATED PRISON POPULATION IS LARGER THAN ALL SINCE 1980 Alex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdf To put that in perspective, the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses today is larger than the entire United States prison and jail population was in 1980. In short, after four decades, it is becoming increasingly clear that our current drug control strategy has not worked. Despite spending more money and imprisoning more people in our drug control effort than most other nations, we have among the highest drug use rates in the world. 5. WE IMPRISON MORE THAN RUSSIAN AND CHINA COMBINED FOR DRUG OFFENSES Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-Texas) and Two-time Presidential Candidate, End Insanity Of The War on Drugs Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level, April 20, 2010, Physician, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Accessed 10-13-2010, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/End_Insanity_Of_The_War_on_ Drugs_Start_With_Decriminalizing_Marijuana_at_The_Federal_Level We imprison more of our population per capita than Russia or China ever have, and yet criminals like Philip Garrido (Jaycee Lee Dugard's kidnapper) are out there able to rape and kidnap again and again. (It is interesting that in his case, a little marijuana caught the attention of law enforcement more than repeated reports from neighbors of children in his backyard). The War on Drugs skews the priorities of law enforcement to the detriment of the public.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A RACIST ENTERPRISE

1. THE WAR ON DRUGS PROMOTES RACIALIZED STEREOTYPES ABOUR DRUG USERS Joseph D. McNamara, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief of police for the city of San Jose, for eighteen years, 2004, The American Junkie, Hoover Digest No. 2, The Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6763 The average white Americans image of drug users is that of dangerous young people of colormales who will rob them to obtain money to buy drugs or youthful black female prostitutes spreading disease and delivering crack babies as a result of enslavement to drugs. These cherished misconceptions are the enduring and erroneous foundations of the ill-conceived war on drugs. Actually, the overwhelming majority of American drug users have historically been Caucasians. 2. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS RACIST, SPREADS CRIME AND DISEASE Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; he served with the Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department, October 3, 2010, Only under legalization can we control drug use, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20101003_Only_ under_legalization_can_we_control_drug_use.html The War on Drugs targets the poorly educated, low-income, and people of color, and deprives them of opportunities for advancement, thus throwing them back into the only place they are welcome, the drug culture. It's a self-perpetuating, dysfunctional dance that yields street crime, needle-spread diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis, and encourages kids to drop out of school to chase the remote possibility of the big score in "the dope game." The problem will not be solved at the margins. The problem is prohibition itself, a policy that should be replaced with strict, legalized regulation. 3. STEREOTYPES RESULT IN HIGHER BLACK INCARCERATION RATES Joseph D. McNamara, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief of police for the city of San Jose, for eighteen years, 2004, The American Junkie, Hoover Digest No. 2, The Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6763 The fact that minorities are arrested and incarcerated at vastly disproportionate rates for drug offenses contributes to false stereotypes and permits the continuation of one of the most irrational public policies in the history of the United States. Blacks make up approximately 15 percent of Americas drug users, but more than one-third of adults arrested for drug violations are black. Similar distortions in drug arrests and incarcerations apply to Hispanics. 4. ANTI-DRUG STEREOTYPES ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN OTHER RACIST STEREOTYPES Joseph D. McNamara, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief of police for the city of San Jose, for eighteen years, 2004, The American Junkie, Hoover Digest No. 2, The Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6763 Stereotypes created more than a century ago by nativist American elites targeting blacks, immigrant Irish, German, Italian, and Jewish populations and their strange religions, languages, and cultures led to anti-drug legislation. President Theodore Roosevelt, who held many of the same racial, ethnic, and class biases, greatly encouraged the anti-drug groups. Roosevelt, who was not an alcohol prohibitionist, was motivated by an anti-opium attitude, as well as by a desire to develop America into one of the great world powers. He hoped that stopping England, France, Holland, and Spain from compelling the unwilling China to accept highly profitable (for the exporting nations) opium shipments would win Chinese goodwill and allow Americans to compete with the colonial trading nations in opening the vast China market to other goods.
THE WAR ON DRUGS UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE

1. THE DRUG WAR IS THE HEART OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND VIOLATES FREEDOM Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, January 13, 2010. The War on Drugs is a War on People, http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/the_war_on_drugs_is_a_war_on_people, Accessed 10-14-2010 The drug war the dominant role of the criminal justice system in dealing with certain drugs and the people who buy, sell, make, and use them is driving this explosive increase in incarceration more than anything else. The U.S. arrests almost a million people for marijuana each year and over a half million people are behind bars tonight for a drug law violation. The movement for drug policy reform stands in the footsteps of other movements for individual freedom and social justice it currently stands where the gay rights movement stood in the 1970s, or where the civil rights movement stood in the 1950s, or where the women's rights movement stood in the early part of the 20th century. In each case, it's about advancing freedom and justice. In each case, it's about fighting powerful vested interests in our society. 2. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR AGAINST FAMILIES AND GOOD PEOPLE Drug Policy Alliance, 2010, What's Wrong With the Drug War?, http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/, Accessed 10-14-2010 Everyone has a stake in ending the war on drugs. Whether youre a parent concerned about protecting children from drug-related harm, a social justice advocate worried about racially disproportionate incarceration rates, an environmentalist seeking to protect the Amazon rainforest or a fiscally conservative taxpayer you have a stake in ending the drug war. U.S. federal, state and local governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America drug-free. Yet heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before. Nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. The war on drugs has become a war on families, a war on public health and a war on our constitutional rights. 3. THE WAR ON DRUGS UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE IN THREE WAYS Robert Leeson was a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow for 2006-2007 at the Hoover Institution, 2007, Addicted to the Drug War, Hoover Digest No. 1, Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6126 The war on drugs weakens America and strengthens its enemies in at least five ways. First, prohibition effectively supplies criminals with skills demanded by terrorists: specialized knowledge about how to cross borders undetected. Second, prohibition helps finance terrorist operations. After decriminalization, terrorists would harvest fewer bombs from planting poppies. Third, prohibition contributes to the supply of drug-corrupted gangster cops (the title of a forthcoming book by Joe McNamara, former police chief of Kansas City, Missouri, and San Jose, California). 4. PROHIBITION UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE FOR FIVE REASONS Mark Thornton, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Winter 2007, Prohibition versus Legalization, Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy? The Independent Review, 11:3, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_03_05_thornton.pdf [With drug prohibition] competition for market control creates negative externalities which take several forms. First, violence increases as sellers attempt to monopolize markets, enforce contracts and protect property risking harm or harming non-participants, Second, as a consequence of the higher monopoly price, the number and severity of crimes increase as buyers attempt to support their use. Third, some of the revenue is used to corrupt police, politicians and otherwise legitimate businesses. Fourth, as illustrated by the current war on drugs, non-participants civil liberties are eroded as law enforcement agencies attempt to identify voluntary market participants. Finally, steps taken by the public to insulate themselves from these crimes and civil liberty disruptions constitute additional social costs (Paul and Wilhite 1994, 114).
PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS

1. DRUG PROHIBITION TURNS PEOPLE WHO NEED TREATMENT INTO CRIMINALS Public Agenda, 2010, Redefining Drug Use as Addiction, Not Criminal Behavior, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.publicagenda.org/discussion-guides/redefining-drug-use-addiction-not-criminal-behavior The drug problem has persisted, and in some respects worsened, because we've gone at it the wrong way. The war on drugs isn't working and even if it was, the price is too high. The prohibition on drugs leads to black market prices. It generates crime and violence as dealers fight over turf and sales, and drug users steal to buy illicit substances at inflated prices. The drug laws turn users -- who need treatment -- into criminals. We'd be far better off if drug use were regarded as a health problem. We should legalize at least some drugs and reduce the harm they cause by regulating their sale and treating their victims. 2. DRUG PROHIBITION IS THE #1 FACTOR THAT ENSURES ORGANIZED CRIME FLOURISHES Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-Texas) and Two-time Presidential Candidate, End Insanity Of The War on Drugs Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level, April 20, 2010, Physician, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Accessed 10-13-2010, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/End_Insanity_Of_The_War_on_ Drugs_Start_With_Decriminalizing_Marijuana_at_The_Federal_Level In light of the recent drug-related violence in Mexico, it is appropriate to reflect on how our current prohibition laws affect crime, law enforcement and the economy. Many will have the knee-jerk reaction of wanting to see more of a crackdown on illegal drugs. But I have to ask: Haven't we been cracking down on drugs for several decades only to see the black market flourish and the violence escalate? Could there be a more effective approach? The illegality of drugs is, in fact, the Number One factor that keeps profits up for dealers and cartels, and ensures that organized crime dominates the market. 3. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A FAILED ENTERPRISE Martha Mendoza, Staff Writer, May 14, 2010, In war on drugs, Obama refocuses as public health fight, USA Today, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-14-drugs-war_N.htm 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread. Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked. "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified." 4. DRUG PROHIBITION IS A FAILURE THAT INCREASES CRIME AND VIOLATES CIVIL LIBERTIES The CATO Institute, 2009, The War on Drugs, Chapter 33, CATO Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Ed., Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdf Ours is a federal republic. The federal government has only the powers granted to it in the Constitution. And the United States has a tradition of individual liberty, vigorous civil society, and limited government. Identification of a problem does not mean that the government should undertake to solve it, and the fact that a problem occurs in more than one state does not mean that it is a proper subject for federal policy. Perhaps no area more clearly demonstrates the bad consequences of not following such rules than does drug prohibition. The long federal experiment in prohibition of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs has given us crime and corruption combined with a manifest failure to stop the use of drugs or reduce their availability to children.
PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS

1. A CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACH GUARANTEES ESCALATING VIOLENCE AND CRIME Mark Thornton, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Winter 2007, Prohibition versus Legalization, Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy? The Independent Review, 11:3, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_03_05_thornton.pdf American drug policy should be realigned according to the potential harms of drug abuse and the economic development needs of American cities. As long as drug policy ignores the demand side of the drug-use equation, little headway will ever be made in the battle to reduce drug addiction and abuse. Drug policy, through most of U.S. history, has been supply-side oriented, implicitly assuming that eradication of the source would miraculously reduce the demand for illicit drugs. The reality has been the persistence of a drug industry feeding on the demand for illicit psychoactive substances. As law enforcement efforts become more concentrated, the drug industry becomes more violent, profitable, and debilitating. 2. PROHIBITION HAS UNLEASED MASSIVE CRIME AND VIOLENCE Johann Hari, Staff Writer, June 13, 2010, How Can America's 'War on Drugs' Succeed When Prohibition Laws Failed?, The Independent/UK, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/13-6 When you ban a popular drug that millions of people want, it doesn't disappear. Instead, it is transferred from the legal economy into the hand of armed criminal gangs. Across America, gangsters rejoiced that they had just been handed one of the biggest markets in the country, and unleashed an Armada of freighters, steamers, and even submarines to bring booze back. Nobody who wanted a drink went without. As the journalist Malcolm Bingay wrote: "It was absolutely impossible to get a drink, unless you walked at least ten feet and told the busy bartender in a voice loud enough for him to hear you above the uproar." So if it didn't stop alcoholism, what did it achieve? The same as prohibition does today - a massive unleashing of criminality and violence. 3. WE NEED TO END THE INSANITY CALLED THE WAR ON DRUGS Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-Texas) and Two-time Presidential Candidate, End Insanity Of The War on Drugs Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level, April 20, 2010, Physician, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Accessed 10-13-2010, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/End_Insanity_Of_The_War_on_ Drugs_Start_With_Decriminalizing_Marijuana_at_The_Federal_Level Repeal of alcohol prohibition certainly did organized crime no favors. So too today, if we wanted to pull the rug out from under violent drug cartels, create legitimate job opportunities in place of the black market, realign the priorities of law enforcement, and make room in prison for the people that ought to be there, we need to end the insanity of the War on Drugs. Decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level would be a start. 4. THE DRUG WAR FUELS CRIMINAL CORRUPTION Robert Leeson was a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow for 2006-2007 at the Hoover Institution, 2007, Addicted to the Drug War, Hoover Digest No. 1, Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6126 Fifth, successive drug czars have expanded their empires, but after 18 years, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy has failed to curtail drug consumption while continuing to consume taxpayer funds, with $245 million allocated for 2007. The war on drugs is responsible for almost one-quarter of the $40 billion swallowed up each year by the U.S. prison system. Many of those caught become permanently trapped in tangled webs woven by drug crusaders. With decriminalization, American taxpayers would be relieved of these often counterproductive burdens.
LEGALIZATION REDUCES CRIME

1. HISTORY SHOWS HOW REGULATED LEGALIZATION REDUCES CRIME Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; he served with the Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department, October 3, 2010, Only under legalization can we control drug use, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20101003_Only_ under_legalization_can_we_control_drug_use.html Our grandparents had the wisdom to end alcohol prohibition, not because they decided booze was a harmless drug far from it. They realized that police and judicial corruption, street violence, and unnecessary deaths from an unregulated drug were the inevitable result of a prohibition on consensual "crime." They realized that legalized regulation would sharply reduce the street violence and corruption that had reached historic highs, while cutting the cartels of their day - think Al Capone - off at the knees. They were right. The only thing today's cartels really fear is a legalized, tightly regulated market. The only smart way to cut them off at the knees is to abandon the futile paramilitary approach that keeps them and their street thugs armed and dangerous. 2. THE DRUG WAR IS NET WORSE THAN ADDICTION. PROHIBITION SPREADS CRIME AND DISEASE Drug Policy Alliance, 2010, What's Wrong With the Drug War?, http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/, Accessed 10-14-2010 Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself. So-called drugrelated crime is a direct result of drug prohibition's distortion of immutable laws of supply and demand. Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles. The drug war is not the promoter of family values that some would have us believe. Children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse. 3. THE BENEFITS OF LEGALIZATION OUTWEIGH THE COSTS Mark Thornton, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Winter 2007, Prohibition versus Legalization, Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy? The Independent Review, 11:3, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_03_05_thornton.pdf The existing evidence relevant to drug policy is far from complete. Given the evidence, however, our conclusion is that a free market in drugs is likely to be a far superior policy to current policies of drug prohibition. A free market might lead to a substantial increase in the total amount of drugs consumed. But that policy would also produce substantial reductions in the harmful effects of drug use on third parties through reduced violence, reduced property crime and a number of other channels. On net, the existing evidence suggests the social costs of drug prohibition are vastly greater than its benefits (Miron and Zwiebel 1995, 192). 4. ENDING DRUG PROHIBITION REDUCES CRIME AND CORRUPTION Ariel Goldring, Staff Writer, September 29, 2010, The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition, Free Market Mojo, Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis. None of these considerations weakens the critique of drug prohibition since that critique has always rested mainly on other considerations, such as the crime, corruption, and curtailment of civil liberties that have been the side-effects of attempting to fight drug use with police officers and prisons. What the estimates provided here do provide are two additional reasons to end drug prohibition: reduced expenditure on law enforcement and an increase in tax revenue from legalized sales.
LEGALIZATION FREES UP LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES

1. LEGLIZATION CREATES MASSIVE SAVINGS FOR STATE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGETS Kate Waldock, doctoral candidate in economics at, Stern School of Business at New York University, September 29, 2010, Drug Legalization -- a Windfall for State Budgets, Huffington Post, Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-waldock/drug-legalization-a-windf_b_744360.html One of our points is that legalization will both save money on law enforcement and generate tax revenue. Law enforcement costs encompass police, judicial trials, and correction facilities. These enforcement savings are significant, but harder to achieve than increased revenue because they require layoffs of police, prosecutors, prison guards, and so on. Even without any reduction in expenditure, of course, legalization would still free resources for more important criminal justice activities. 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT APPROACH SIPHONS POLICE RESOURCES TO SOLVE HOMICIDES Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; he served with the Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department, October 3, 2010, Only under legalization can we control drug use, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20101003_Only_ under_legalization_can_we_control_drug_use.html Yet today drugs are more potent, affordable, and far more widely used by Americans, especially our children, who report on federal surveys that it is easier for them to get illegal drugs than alcohol. Philadelphia defendants avoid prosecution in nearly two-thirds of violent-crime cases, but it's not because of poor policing; it's because of poor priorities - the drug laws - which deflect our attention and resources away from those crimes. In the 1960s, we solved nearly 90 percent of all homicides nationally. But federal drug policies have shifted our focus from such crimes to mostly consensual nonviolent activities, where cops don't belong in a free society. As a result, some people are literally getting away with murder. Nationally today, we solve only six out of 10 homicides. 3. THE DRUG WAR KEEPS OUR PRISONS FULL WHILE MURDERS AND RAPISTS GO FREE Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-Texas) and Two-time Presidential Candidate, End Insanity Of The War on Drugs Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level, April 20, 2010, Physician, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Accessed 10-13-2010, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/End_Insanity_Of_The_War_on_ Drugs_Start_With_Decriminalizing_Marijuana_at_The_Federal_Level During alcohol prohibition, Al Capone and others involved in organized crime made fortunes taking advantage of the dangerous and lucrative underground market the laws had created. Every time law enforcement makes another bust, profits rise for the remaining suppliers. These types of economic forces are insurmountable for law enforcement, but make for very good business for dealers and cartels. For the rest of us, however, it is a disaster. The war on drugs keeps our prisons full to bursting at great expense to taxpayers, but also at great danger to the public at large when the real criminals, the murderers, the rapists, the child molesters, are let out to make room for non-violent drug offenders. 4. FEDERAL DRUG ENFORCEMENT WASTES $19 BILLION EVERY YEAR The CATO Institute, 2009, The War on Drugs, Chapter 33, CATO Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Ed., Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdf In the 1920s, Congress experimented with the prohibition of alcohol. On February 20, 1933, a new Congress acknowledged the failure of alcohol prohibition and sent the Twenty-First Amendment to the states. Congress recognized that Prohibition had failed to stop drinking and had increased prison populations and violent crime. By the end of 1933, national Prohibition was history, though many states continued to outlaw or severely restrict the sale of liquor. Today, Congress confronts a similarly failed prohibition policy. Futile efforts to enforce prohibition have been pursued even more vigorously since the 1980s than they were in the 1920s. Total federal expenditures for the first 10 years of Prohibition amounted to $88 millionabout $1 billion in 2008 dollars. Drug enforcement costs about $19 billion a year now in federal spending alone.
LEGALIZATION SOLVES STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS

1. LEGALIZING DRUGS WOULD VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Kate Waldock, doctoral candidate in economics, Stern School of Business at New York University, The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition, http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf, Accessed 10-102010 Both politicians and the public express concern about the debt, but the standard proposals for expenditure cuts or tax increases garner little support. Understandably, therefore, some politicians, commentators, interest groups, and citizens have embraced unconventional approaches to closing fiscal gaps, such as legalizing drugs. Legalization would reduce state and federal deficits by eliminating expenditure on prohibition enforcement arrests, prosecutions, and incarcerationand by allowing governments to collect tax revenue on legalized sales. 2. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SAVE BILLIONS WITH LEGALIZATION Ariel Goldring, Staff Writer, September 29, 2010, The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition, Free Market Mojo, Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis. A new report by Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock estimates that ending drug prohibition would save the US some $41.3 billion annually in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs. The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs. 3. LEGALIZATION WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE FEDERAL AND STATE BUDGET DEFICITS Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Kate Waldock, doctoral candidate in economics at, Stern School of Business at New York University, October 3, 2010, Making an economic case for legalizing drugs, The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101003_Making_an_economic_case_for_legalizing_drugs.html, Accessed 10-10-2010 State and federal governments face a daunting fiscal outlook. The national debt stands at 60 percent of GDP, its highest level since World War II. Under current projections this ratio will rise to more than 75 percent of GDP by 2020 and continue increasing thereafter. States are also facing severe budget shortfalls. Politicians and the public express concern about the debt, but standard proposals for expenditure cuts or tax increases garner little support. Understandably, therefore, some politicians, commentators, interest groups, and citizens have embraced unconventional approaches to closing fiscal gaps, such as legalizing drugs. Legalization would reduce state and federal deficits by eliminating expenditure on prohibition enforcement - arrests, prosecutions, and incarceration and by allowing governments to collect tax revenue on legalized sales. 4. LEGALIZATION SAVES OVER $40 BILLION IN GOVERNMENT FUNDING Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Kate Waldock, doctoral candidate in economics at, Stern School of Business at New York University, October 3, 2010, Making an economic case for legalizing drugs, The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101003_Making_an_economic_case_for_legalizing_drugs.html, Accessed 10-10-2010 In our recent study, just released by the Cato Institute, we estimate the impact of legalization on federal, state, and local budgets. The report concludes that drug legalization would reduce government expenditure about $41.3 billion annually. Roughly $25.7 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, and roughly $15.6 billion to the federal government. About $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana, $20 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $12.6 billion from legalization of all other drugs.
DECRIMINALIZATION BENEFITS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

1. DECRIMINALIZING DRUGS FREES UP LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES Public Agenda, 2010, Redefining Drug Use as Addiction, Not Criminal Behavior, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.publicagenda.org/discussion-guides/redefining-drug-use-addiction-not-criminal-behavior Drug treatment should be widely available, and stigma-free. Studies show that treatment programs are the most costeffective way of dealing with the drug problem. Even expensive treatment programs pay for themselves by reducing the costs of lost productivity, crime, and health care. Decriminalizing certain drugs -- such as the use of marijuana -will permit law enforcement officials to focus on more pressing priorities. 2. DECRIMINALIZATION REDUCES USE, WHILE PROMOTING EDUCATION AND TREATMENT Mark Thornton, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Winter 2007, Prohibition versus Legalization, Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy? The Independent Review, 11:3, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_03_05_thornton.pdf Decriminalization is a strategic shift to a demand-side strategy that concentrates on education and treatment. Decriminalizing drug use and trafficking will greatly increase our ability to cope with the human dimensions of drug abuse. Moreover, by shifting to a demand-side strategy, that uses comprehensive decriminalization as a cornerstone, urban policy can concentrate more fruitfully on the problem of urban economic growth and development (Staley 1992, 249). 3. DRUGS CAUSE PROBLEMS BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. DECRIMINALIZATION SOLVES Public Agenda, 2010, Redefining Drug Use as Addiction, Not Criminal Behavior, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.publicagenda.org/discussion-guides/redefining-drug-use-addiction-not-criminal-behavior The harm done by drugs is predominantly caused by the fact that they're illegal. A more sensible policy would control their distribution and discourage their use. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work in the 1920s and drug prohibition doesn't work now. Decriminalizing drug use would destroy the illicit drug trade. The war on drugs has done tremendous harm by sending thousands of drug users to prison instead of salvaging their lives and communities with treatment. 4. PORTUGAL PROVES DECRIMINALIZING DRUGS WORKS Maia Szalavitz, Staff Writer, April 26, 2009, Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?, Time, Accessed 10-15-2010, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise. The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs Sample Negative Case
20
THESIS: While the resolution posits that public held should be the choice, this case argues that there needs not be a choice. In fact, both public health and criminal justice approaches are necessary in the fight against illegal drugs. The resolution posits a choice in addressing the abuse of illegal drugs: take a public health approach or a criminal justice approach. To affirm the resolution means supporting a public health approach at the exclusion of criminal justice issues. However, these approaches are not incompatible. Therefore, I must Negate the resolution and the Affirmative. In terms of values and criterion, I will advocate social welfare in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. OBSERVATION ONE: WHAT IT MEANS TO NEGATE THIS RESOLUTION Some might naturally assume that to negate the resolution is to necessarily take the opposite view. Of course, the complexity of the issues at hand deny an either/or strategy. The resolution oversimplifies the drug abuse phenomena into something that can only be treated as a matter of public health, NOT criminal justice. I wont go into an unnecessary definition war over the word not, but it clearly indicates one as opposed to another. However, a criminal justice approach is not incompatible with measures of public health National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf The criminal justice system refers drug offenders into treatment through a variety of mechanisms, such as diverting nonviolent offenders to treatment; stipulating treatment as a condition of incarceration, probation, or pretrial release; and convening specialized courts, or drug courts, that handle drug offense cases. These courts mandate and arrange for treatment as an alternative to incarceration, actively monitor progress in treatment, and arrange for other services for drug-involved offenders. The job of the Negative is to persuade the judge that public health approaches should not be valued above criminal justice. Claims of sitting on the fence are both untrue and destructive. Advocating a combination approach where we see drug addiction BOTH as a matter of public health and criminal justice directly rejects and says not to the resolution. Moreover, the forced choice presented by the resolution replicates the fallacious logic of the Bush Administration in justifying war against Iraq because of 9/11. Youre either with us or against us. Those consequences are now obvious. Although the Affirmative will likely make arguments about how the social welfare is accessed through a public health approach and how bad a strict criminal justice approach might be, all of this assumes a false choice embedded in the resolution I negate. This debate is about which position best affirms the general social welfare. Your choice is between solely focusing on drug addiction as a public health concern, or as BOTH a matter of public health and criminal justice.
West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs Sample Negative Case
21
OBSERVATION TWO: A COMBINATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES IS NECESSARY A. PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACHES ALONE SUBSTANTIALLY WORSEN THE DRUG PROBLEM Robert L. DuPont, M.D., President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. and the first Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 1973 to 1978, March 24, 2009, Whats Wrong with Legalizing Illegal Drugs?, http://www.ibhinc.org/pdfs/WhatsWrongwithLegalizingIllegalDrugs32409.pdf, Accessed 10-10-2010 The great danger in todays drug policy debate is not that the world will legalize all of the currently illegal drugs as The Economist encourages. It is that the determined and well-financed efforts to remove restrictive drug policies will sideline the important policy role of the criminal justice system, and that governments will provide drugs as well as drug-using paraphernalia to drug users. Such harm reduction policies, which to its credit The Economist dismisses, are the real drug policy threat because they substantially worsen the drug problems of the world by increasing illegal drug use. B. OBAMAS NEW DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY EMBODIES THE OPTIMAL COMBINATION Doug Brunk, Staff Writer, June 15, 2010, Updated Drug Control Strategy Includes Variety of Approaches, Internal Medicine News, 43:11, pp. 1-2. Released last month by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the strategy also sets goals for reducing by 15% drug-induced deaths and drug-related morbidity, and reducing by 10% the prevalence of drugged driving among all Americans. The focus on prevention would include screening and early intervention, treatment and recovery, and law enforcement, which would address the trafficking and production of illicit drugs and the related cycle of crime, delinquency, and imprisonment. Dr. Robert L. DuPont, a psychiatrist who was the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said the strategy "improves the links between treatment and the criminal justice system. It is more focused on the primary goal of reducing the demand for drugs than were previous administrations' strategies. Teaming law enforcement with treatment makes both work better." C. RESEARCH PROVES THE COMBINATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND TREATMENT WORKS BEST National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Research has shown that combining criminal justice sanctions with drug treatment can be effective in decreasing drug abuse and related crime. Individuals under legal coercion tend to stay in treatment longer and do as well as or better than those not under legal pressure. Often, drug abusers come into contact with the criminal justice system earlier than other health or social systems, presenting opportunities for intervention and treatment prior to, during, after, or in lieu of incarcerationwhich may ultimately interrupt and shorten a career of drug use. D. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN PROVIDE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO INTEGRATE AN PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH Benjamin Tucker, Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing; "Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders" Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. The criminal justice system plays a vital role in reducing the costs and consequences of drug crimes, not just by incarcerating serious offenders who threaten the safety of the community, but also by providing a powerful incentive to address drug use before it escalates into a costly, and life threatening addiction. It is critical for drug-involved probationers and parolees to succeed and, in turn, break the cycle of recidivism. In order for probationers and parolees to be successful under community supervision, treatment needs to be of high-quality and readily accessible within the community. That is why, in FY 2011, the Budget proposal for the Department of Justice includes $10 million for prosecution-led drug treatment alternatives to incarceration.
22 Sample Negative
CURRENT DRUG POLICY HAS SHIFTED TO PUBLIC HEALTH

1. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS ALREADY REFOCUSING TO PUBLIC HEALTH Gary Fields, May 14, 2009, White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs', Wall Street Journal, Accessed 1014-2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach. The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment's role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said. Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent. 2. THE WHITE HOUSE DRUG POLICY HAS SHIFTED MORE TOWARD PUBLIC HEALTH Peter S. Green, Bloomberg News Staff Writer, May 11, 2010, New Obama Strategy Treats War on Drugs as Public Health Issue, Businessweek, Accessed 10-12-2010, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-11/newobama-strategy-treats-war-on-drugs-as-public-health-issue.html President Barack Obamas plan to fight drug abuse and trafficking proposes spending $15.5 billion next year and shifting the emphasis from fighting a war on drugs to treating the problem as a national health issue, the administrations top drug-policy adviser said in an interview. Its a disease, its diagnosable and its certainly something that can be treated -- but its not a war, said Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 3. OBAMA IS REFOCUSING FUNDS TOWARD PUBLIC HEALTH ALTERNATIVE AND TREATMENT Ben B. Tucker, Deputy Director, State, Local, and Tribal Affairs Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration, CQ Congressional Testimony, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. The Administration supports locally driven drug and community courts and will continue to support approaches that ensure offenders are matched with the appropriate court. For example, veterans' courts have taken root in several jurisdictions across the country. Veterans' courts meet the unique needs of veterans, while matching them with services to assist them on the road to recovery from substance abuse. The FY 2011 Budget request contains funding totaling $56.4 million for substance abuse treatment activities in drug courts in the Department of Health and Human Services budget (an increase of $12.5 million over the FY 2010 enacted level) and $57 million for drug, mental health, and problem-solving courts in the Department of Justice's budget. This represents a total Federal investment of $113.4 million. 4. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ADMITTED REFOCUSING ON PUBLIC HEALTH IS KEY Martha Mendoza, The Associated Press, May 14, 2010, In war on drugs, Obama refocuses as public health fight, USA Today, Accessed 10-15-2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-14-drugs-war_N.htm "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years l ater, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified." This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.
23 Sample Negative
CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEADS TO TREATMENT

1. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE TO SEEK TREATMENT National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Motivational enhancement and incentive strategies, begun at initial patient intake, can improve treatment engagement. Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective. Sanctions or enticements from family, employment settings, and/or the criminal justice system can significantly increase treatment entry, retention rates, and the ultimate success of drug treatment interventions. 2, CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRESSURE CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE MOTIVATOR FOR TREATMENT National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf The majority of offenders involved with the criminal justice system are not in prison but are under community supervision. For those with known drug problems, drug addiction treatment may be recommended or mandated as a condition of probation. Research has demonstrated that individuals who enter treatment under legal pressure have outcomes as favorable as those who enter treatment voluntarily. 3. A NEW NIH STUDY PROVES THAT CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS INTEGRATING PUBLIC HEALTH NOW National Institutes of Health, September 23, 2010, Unprecedented effort to seek, test, and treat inmates with HIV, National Institutes of Health Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis Twelve scientific teams in more than a dozen states will receive National Institutes of Health grants to study effective ways to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS among people in the criminal justice system. The grants, announced today, will be awarded primarily by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), with additional support from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), all components of NIH. The research will take place over a five-year period. "These important and wide reaching research grants will focus on identifying individuals with HIV within the criminal justice system and linking them to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) during periods of incarceration and after community re-entry," said NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. 4. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS EMPLOYING A TREATMENT APPROACH NOW National Institutes of Health, September 23, 2010, Unprecedented effort to seek, test, and treat inmates with HIV, National Institutes of Health Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis The seek, test and treat funding opportunity follows NIH-sponsored research conducted over the last few years which has indicated that identifying and offering treatment to all medically eligible HIV-positive individuals cannot only stop progression to AIDS and AIDS-related death, but can also help to prevent HIV transmission. These new grants will apply this strategy to the criminal justice system, where there is a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and often poor access to treatment. The newly funded research will compare different modalities of the seek, test, and treat strategy to identify, test, engage and retain HIV-positive offenders in treatment. Some of the projects will create and compare systems to better integrate and coordinate HIV management efforts within jails, prisons, health departments, universities, and community organizations.
24 Sample Negative
DRUG ADDICTION FOSTERS CRIME

1. DRUG ABUSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF OF ALL VIOLENT AND PROPERTY CRIMES John P. Walters, executive vice president of Hudson Institute and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2001 to 2009 under President George W. Bush, April 25, 2009, Drugs: To Legalize or Not, Wall Street Journal, Accessed 10-10-2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061336043754551.html The violence of traffickers, which has harmed tens of thousands, is dwarfed by the millions harmed by another violence, that done daily by those in our own communities under the influence of drugs. Roughly 80% of child abuse and neglect cases are tied to the use and abuse of drugs. It is not that drug abuse causes all crime and violence, it just makes it much worse by impairing judgment, weakening impulse control and at some levels of pathology, with some drugs, causing paranoia and psychosis. Well more than 50% of those arrested today for violent and property crimes test positive for illegal drug use when arrested. Legalized access to drugs would increase drugrelated suffering dramatically. 2. DRUG ABUSE INCREASES CRIME Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority, http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010 Drug users commit a disproportionate amount of all types of crime, not just drug possession offenses (Marlowe, 2002). 80% of state and federal inmates have been incarcerated for alcohol or drug-related offenses, intoxicated at the time of their offense, committed the offense to support their addiction, or had a history of alcohol abuse or dependence and/or illegal drug use (CASA, 1998). 3. ADDICTION AND DRUG-RELATED DEATHS ARE ON THE RISE R. Gil Kerlikowske, former Director of National Drug Control Policy, July 13, 2010, US drug czar: Why we need to end 'War on Drugs', The Grio, http://www.thegrio.com/health/defining-a-new-drug-policy-for-communities-ofcolor.php, Accessed 10-9-2010 Our drug control policy must be fair, and must be flexible enough to address the evolving drug issues we face. Overdose deaths have more than doubled over the last 10 years, now exceeding automobile fatalities as the number one cause of injury death in 16 states. Prescription drug abuse is at record levels. In 10 states, drugged driving is more prevalent than drunken driving. And recent data show troubling signs among youth of increased use of some drugs, and softening attitudes toward drug use. 4. LEGALIZATION WOULD ESCALATE DRUG CRIMES AND DRUG ABUSE Jaime Esparza, district attorney for Texas' 34th Judicial District, which includes El Paso, January 18, 2009, Drug legalization is not the answer, El Paso Times (Texas), Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis. In my work prosecuting violent crime in this community, I can tell you that increased availability of drugs through legalization will cause the crime rate to increase. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime. Violent crimes such as murder, sexual assault, robbery, and domestic violence are committed every day in our community by individuals under the influence of drugs. Drug abuse thus affects the health, welfare, and safety of all people, users and nonusers alike.
25 Sample Negative
DRUG ABUSE SPREADS DISEASE

1. DRUG ABUSERS SPREAD COMMUNICABLE DISEASES National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Drug-abusing individuals, including injecting and non-injecting drug users, are at increased risk of HIV, HCV, and other infectious diseases. These diseases are transmitted by sharing contaminated drug injection equipment and by engaging in risky sexual behavior sometimes associated with drug use. Effective drug abuse treatment is HIV/HCV prevention because it reduces associated risk behaviors as well as drug abuse. Counseling that targets a range of HIV/HCV risk behaviors provides an added level of disease prevention. 2. DRUG ADDICTION IS A SCOURGE ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority, http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010 The cost of alcohol and other drug problems to society is even greater when the impact on public health is considered: as they contribute to the spread of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS either through sharing of drug paraphernalia or unprotected sex; homelessness; and motor vehicle crashes. Other associated costs are more difficult to quantify, such as compromised family environments that contribute to poor developmental outcomes in children, lower socioeconomic status, poor marital relations, and parental conflict (McMahon and Giannini, 2003). 3. TREATMENT IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIV SCREENING National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Drug injectors who do not enter treatment are up to six times more likely to become infected with HIV than injectors who enter and remain in treatment because the latter reduce activities that can spread disease, such as sharing injection equipment and engaging in unprotected sexual activity. Participation in treatment also presents opportunities for screening, counseling, and referral to additional services, including early HIV treatment and access to HAART. In fact, HIV counseling and testing are key aspects of superior drug abuse treatment programs and should be offered to all individuals entering treatment. Greater availability of inexpensive and unobtrusive rapid HIV tests should increase access to these important aspects of HIV prevention and treatment. 4. DRUG ABUSE CAN SPREAD INFECTIOUS DISEASES, LIKE HIV The National Institute on Drug Abuse, August 2008, NIDA InfoFacts: Drug Abuse and the link to HIV/AIDS and Other Infectious Diseases, Accessed 10-15-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/DrugAbuse.html HIV can be transmitted by contact with the blood or other body fluids of an infected person. In addition, infected pregnant women can pass HIV to their infants during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. Among drug users, HIV transmission can occur through sharing needles and other injection paraphernalia such as cotton swabs, rinse water, and cookers. However, another way people are at risk for HIV is simply by using drugs, regardless of whether a needle and syringe is involved. Drugs and alcohol can interfere with judgment and can lead to risky sexual behaviors that put people in danger of contracting or transmitting HIV.
26 Sample Negative
A COMBINATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IS BEST

1. THE MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACHES COMBINE PUBLIC HEALTH AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf The most effective models integrate criminal justice and drug treatment systems and services. Treatment and criminal justice personnel work together on treatment planningincluding implementation of screening, placement, testing, monitoring, and supervisionas well as on the systematic use of sanctions and rewards. Treatment for incarcerated drug abusers should include continuing care, monitoring, and supervision after incarceration and during parole. (For more information, please see NIDAs Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research-Based Guide [revised 2007].) 2. INCORPORATING TREATMENT AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BEST FOR ALL National Institute on Drug Abuse, January 13, 2009, Drug Abusing Offenders Not Getting Treatment They Need in Criminal Justice System, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/newsroom/09/NR1-13.html "Addiction is a stigmatized disease that the criminal justice system often fails to view as a medical condition; as a consequence, its treatment is not as available as it is for other medical conditions," stated Dr. Redonna K. Chandler, the report's principal author and chief of NIDA's Services Research Branch. There are several ways in which drug abuse treatment can be incorporated into the criminal justice system. These include therapeutic alternatives to incarceration, treatment merged with judicial oversight in drug courts, treatments provided in prison and jail, and reentry programs to help offenders transition from incarceration back into the community. 3. AN EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICY USES PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT Benjamin Tucker, Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing; "Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders" Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. The current Strategy stresses the importance of prevention, treatment, and enforcement. These necessary components comprise a common-sense approach to deterring young people and adults from using drugs and, as is too often the case, becoming involved with the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The juvenile justice system is built on the belief that youth have the potential to change and grow, but, unfortunately, young people are cycling in and out of state and local systems on a regular basis. To keep young people from cycling through the juvenile justice system or, worse, entering and cycling through the adult system, early intervention and evidence-based approaches are critical. 4. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS AN EXCELLENT PLACE TO COMBINE BOTH APPROACHES Nora D. Volkow, M.D., Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, June 23, 2010, Treating Addiction as a Disease: The Promise of Medication-Assisted Recovery, Testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, ttp://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2010/06/t20100623a.html Criminal justice settings offer prime venues for implementing evidence-based treatments among a high-risk population. More than half of incarcerated individuals have a substance use history, but rather than capitalizing on the opportunity to effectively treat this high-risk population, we continue to release prisoners without any provision or mechanism for follow-up treatment, in spite of known consequences: greater recidivism, relapse, and post-release mortality.
27 Sample Negative
A COMBINATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IS BEST

1. THE CURRENT DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY SHOWS AN EFFECTIVE COMBINATION Benjamin Tucker, Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing; "Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders" Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. The 2010 Strategy places an unprecedented focus on highlighting the importance of alternatives to incarceration. As our Strategy attests, there are more alternatives to incarceration available in our criminal justice system than ever before. While budget realities have driven some of these alternatives, in many cases, cooperative ventures among human service, criminal justice, and community groups have led to these innovations. Therefore, these alternatives are not solely the province of the criminal justice system. Instead, for these programs to be effective, they also necessitate the involvement of other community and governmental actors. I will discuss several alternatives to incarceration today, including: drug and community courts, drug market interventions, and testing and sanctions programs. 2. EITHER EXTREME ALONE WOULD UNDERMINE SOCIAL WELFARE Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, Staff Writers, April 6, 2010, In no-win war on narcotics, a call for some legalization, Buffalo News (New York), p. A1. Others say legalization would only open up the floodgates for more drug abuse. They would rather see the war against drugs fought on another front -- realistic treatment programs for drug addiction to reduce demand. And the best way to start is by working with young people, the future customers of drug dealers. "There's been an epidemic in the last year with these opiates, and it is particularly hitting adolescents and young adults ages 14 through 25," said Dick Gallagher, executive director of Alcohol and Drug Dependency Services, which runs nine addiction-treatment programs. Sixty-three percent of teenagers, he said, get their first taste of narcotic prescription drugs from the family medicine cabinet. Many eventually end up hooked on heroin, which is cheaper and easily accessible. But no matter where you stand on the issue of drug abuse, there is a consensus that putting drug dealers out of business through lengthy police investigations does not work as well as anyone would like. 3. A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH IS NEEDED WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM National Institute on Drug Abuse, March 2009, Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/tib/drugs_crime.html Involvement in the criminal justice system provides an opportunity to diagnose and treat these health problems, which include infectious diseases. The prevalence of AIDS is estimated to be approximately five times higher among incarcerated individuals than in the general population. In addition, individuals in the criminal justice system represent a significant proportion of all cases of hepatitis B and C infection and tuberculosis in the United States. Increasing participation in drug abuse treatment can decrease the spread of these diseases by reducing risky behaviors, such as sharing injection equipment and having unprotected sex. It is a public health and safety issue that cannot go unheeded. 4. COMBINING PRISONS AND COMMUNITY TREATMENT REDUCES ADDICTION National Institute on Drug Abuse, March 2009, Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/tib/drugs_crime.html In addition to treatment in prison, research strongly indicates that continuing treatment in the community is needed to sustain these gains. Combining prison-based treatment with community-based treatment upon release reduces an offender's risk of recidivism, decreases substance abuse, improves prospects for employment, and increases prosocial behavior (see Figure 2). Case management and referral to other medical, psychological, and social services are crucial components of treatment for many offenders.
28 Sample Negative
PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS NEEDED WITHIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

1. WE SHOULD INTEGRATE TREATMENT WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Research has demonstrated that treatment for drug-addicted offenders during and after incarceration can have a significant effect on future drug use, criminal behavior, and social functioning. The case for integrating drug addiction treatment approaches with the criminal justice system is compelling. Combining prison- and communitybased treatment for addicted offenders reduces the risk of both recidivism to drug-related criminal behavior and relapse to drug use, which, in turn, nets huge savings in societal costs. 2. EMPLOYING PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT TO PRISONERS REDUCES USE AND RECIDIVISM Mary Carmichael, Staff Writer, June 29, 2010, The Case for Treating Drug Addicts in Prison, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/29/the-case-for-treating-drug-addicts-in-prison.html, Accessed 10-11-2010 Treatment can reduce recidivism rates from 50 percent to something more like 20 percent, according to the DEA. Yet it is not widely provided. Our system has taken the highest-risk and most ill people and put them in a place where they have constitutionally mandated health care, Rich says. What a great opportunity to make a difference. Are we just trying to punish people? Or are we trying to rehabilitate people? What do we want out of this? 3. PEOPLE WITHIN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM REQUIRE TREATMENT National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide, Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdf Research has shown that combining criminal justice sanctions with drug treatment can be effective in decreasing drug abuse and related crime. Individuals under legal coercion tend to stay in treatment longer and do as well as or better than those not under legal pressure. Often, drug abusers come into contact with the criminal justice system earlier than other health or social systems, presenting opportunities for intervention and treatment prior to, during, after, or in lieu of incarcerationwhich may ultimately interrupt and shorten a career of drug use. More information on how the criminal justice system can address the problem of drug addiction can be found in Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research-Based Guide (National Institute on Drug Abuse, revised 2007). 4. OFFENDERS AND EMPLOYEES WITHIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE NEED TREATMENT Health Policy, January 28, 2010, Study Finds That Substance Abuse Treatment Reduces Criminal Behavior and Drug Use of Adolescents in the Criminal Justice System, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.rwjf.org/healthpolicy/product.jsp?id=55936 Investigators at the University of Pittsburgh coordinated a longitudinal study of 1,355 serious adolescent offenders in Philadelphia and Phoenix to learn what paths led them to continued engagement with the criminal justice system or away from it. As of March 2006, investigators reported the following preliminary findings, while emphasizing that they could change as they collect and analyze further data: Substance abuse treatment lowers substance use and significantly reduces criminal behavior, even if delivered in conditions that are not standardized by providers who are not highly trained. Youth who need mental health and substance abuse treatment do not consistently receive it. Employees at public facilities identify offenders who need substance abuse and other treatment as effectively, and sometimes more so, than employees in private facilities.
29 Sample Negative
PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS NEEDED WITHIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

1. LACK OF OFFENDER TREATMENT UNDERMINES PUBLIC HEALTH National Institute on Drug Abuse, March 2009, Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/tib/drugs_crime.html The connection between drug abuse and crime is well known - one-half to two-thirds of inmates in jails and State and Federal prisons meet standard diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV) for alcohol/drug dependence or abuse. Yet only 7% to 17% of these prisoners receive treatment in jail or prison, so that most of the over 650,000 inmates released back into the community each year have not received needed treatment services. Left untreated, drug-abusing offenders can relapse to drug use and return to criminal behavior. This jeopardizes public health and public safety, leads to rearrest and re-incarceration, and further taxes an already over-burdened criminal justice system. 2. PEOPLE WHO LEAVE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DO NOT RECEIVE TREATMENT Charles OBrien, MD, PhD, PLNDP Leadership Council, April 2008, Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority, Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010 Most parolees and probationers with a history of addiction are not receiving modern, evidence-based treatment. The result is relapse and return to prison in a revolving door fashion. The National Institute on Health has developed important new treatments involving medications and specific forms of psychotherapy which should be made available to those caught up in the justice system. 3. A HUGE PORTION OF PEOPLE IN PRISONS NEED TREATMENT FOR ADDICITON Mary Carmichael, Staff Writer, June 29, 2010, The Case for Treating Drug Addicts in Prison, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/29/the-case-for-treating-drug-addicts-in-prison.html, Accessed 10-11-2010 Of the 2.3 million inmates in the U.S., more than half have a history of substance abuse and addiction. Not all those inmates are imprisoned on drug-related charges (although drug arrests have been rising steadily since the early 1990s; there were 195,700 arrests in 2007). But in many cases, their crimes, such as burglary, have been committed in the service of feeding their addictions. Rich, a professor of medicine and community health at Brown University, is worried that, by refusing or neglecting to provide treatment to these addicts, many U.S. prisons are missing the best chance to cure themand in the process to cut down on future crime. 4. STUDIES SHOW AN INTEGRATED APPROACH WORKS BEST FOR TREATMENT National Institute on Drug Abuse, March 2009, Treating Offenders with Drug Problems: Integrating Public Health and Public Safety, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/tib/drugs_crime.html Multiple studies have examined treatment approaches that integrate drug abuse treatment into criminal justice settings. These approaches include therapeutic communities (TCs) in prison and community work-release settings, drug courts designed to blend treatment with judicial monitoring and sanctions, Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC) case management approaches, and drug treatment alternatives to incarceration. Research shows that combining treatment medications, where available, with behavioral therapy is the best way to ensure success for most patients. Yet despite known efficacy, pharmacological treatments for drug addiction are underused in the criminal justice system.
30 Sample Negative
LEGALIZATION INCREASES DRUG USE AND ABUSE

1. LEGALIZING DRUGS MAKES THEM CHEAPER AND MORE ACCESSIBLE Julian Aguilar, Staff Writer, August 13, 2010, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske: Legalizing Drugs Is Not the Answer, Texas Tribune, Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.texastribune.org/texas-mexico-border-news/texas-mexicoborder/drug-czar-kerlikowske-legalizing-drugs-not-answer/ Advocates pushing for the legalization of drugs in this country have a long fight ahead of them if current Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has anything to say about it. Kerlikowske, known officially as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke this morning at a border security conference in El Paso, where he tried to debunk the belief that taxing and regulating currently illegal narcotics would somehow put narco-traffickers out of business. [Traffickers] would not change their ways and turn to legal pursuits if drugs were legal, he said. Legalizing drugs makes them cheaper, makes them more accessible and therefore makes them more widely abused. 2. LEGALIZATION ROBS US OF THE STRONG ADVANCES IN TREATMENT WE HAVE ACHIEVED John P. Walters, executive vice president of Hudson Institute and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2001 to 2009 under President George W. Bush, April 25, 2009, Drugs: To Legalize or Not, Wall Street Journal, Accessed 10-10-2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061336043754551.html We have learned to apply public health tools that have been proven effective against other diseases. We have learned that addiction is a treatable disease. We are increasing the pathways to treatment -- through routine health care, the workplace, places of worship and schools. Drug courts leading to referral for treatment by the criminal justice system are now the major pathway through which the dependent are getting the help they need. Do we want to end all this by taking the courts out of the equation? Supervised, court-sanctioned treatment works best. Legalization robs us of this tool. 3. LEGALIZATION GUARANTEES A HIGHER AMOUNT OF DRUG USE Robert L. DuPont, M.D., President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. and the first Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 1973 to 1978, March 24, 2009, Whats Wrong with Legalizing Illegal Drugs?, http://www.ibhinc.org/pdfs/WhatsWrongwithLegalizingIllegalDrugs32409.pdf, Accessed 10-10-2010 To fairly evaluate the current restrictive international drug laws we need a realistic assessment of the risks of making drugs of abuse more easily available. As a group these drugs pose far greater risks than alcohol or tobacco because they are so much more powerfully reinforcing. If the US were to legalize the drugs that are now illegal, the number of users would increase for each drug to numbers similar to alcohol and tobacco. 4. LEGALIZED DRUGS WOULD UNLEASH AN GLOBAL EPIDEMIC OF ABUSE Antonio Maria Costa, former executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime from May 2002 to August 2010, September 5, 2010, Comment: Legalise drugs and a worldwide epidemic of addiction will follow, The Observer (England), Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis. Drug policy does not have to choose between either protecting health, through drug control, or ensuring law and order, by liberalising drugs. Society must protect both health and safety. In a world of free drugs, the privileged rich can afford expensive treatment while poor people are condemned to a life of dependence. Now extrapolate the problem on to a global scale and imagine the impact of unregulated drug use in developing countries, with no prevention or treatment available. Legalised drugs would unleash an epidemic of addiction in the developing world. Last but not least, there's the question of human rights. Around the world, millions of people caught taking drugs are sent to jail. In some countries, drug treatment amounts to the equivalent of torture. People are sentenced to death for drug-related offences. Although drugs kill, governments should not kill because of them.
31 Sample Negative
LEGALIZATION SAVINGS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE POLICY

1. JUST BECAUSE IT SAVES MONEY DOES NOT MAKE LEGALIZATION A SOUND POLICY Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Kate Waldock, doctoral candidate in economics at, Stern School of Business at New York University, October 3, 2010, Making an economic case for legalizing drugs, The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101003_Making_an_economic_case_for_legalizing_drugs.html, Accessed 10-10-2010 The fact that legalization would generate a fiscal dividend does not, by itself, make it a better policy than prohibition. Legalization would have many effects, and opinions differ on whether these are desirable on net. Both sides in this debate, however, should want to know the order of magnitude of the fiscal benefit that might arise from legalization. Our results imply that the budgetary implications of legalization are neither trivial nor overwhelming. Legalization will not solve America's fiscal woes; the budget effects are small in comparison with current deficits. Yet the budgetary benefits are more than mere rounding error; for those with mixed feelings about prohibition vs. legalization, these benefits might be a deciding factor. 2. CURRENT ALTERNATIVES, LIKE DRUG COURTS, ALSO RESULT IN MASSIVE SAVINGS James Burch Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration, CQ Congressional Testimony, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Research is clear that drug courts can reduce recidivism and future drug use. One study that looked at the impact of mature drug courts over ten years showed that compared to traditional criminal justice system processing, treatment, and other investment, costs averaged $1,392 lower per drug court participant. Reduced recidivism and other longterm program outcomes resulted in an average public savings of $6,744 per participant. These savings rose to $12,218 if victimization costs are included (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219225.pdf). 3. SAVINGS ESTIMATES DO NOT ASSUME A HOST OF VARIABLES THAT IMPEDE SUCCESS Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Kate Waldock, doctoral candidate in economics at, Stern School of Business at New York University, October 3, 2010, Making an economic case for legalizing drugs, The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101003_Making_an_economic_case_for_legalizing_drugs.html, Accessed 10-10-2010 These estimates should be taken with several large grains of salt. The markets for illegal drugs are opaque, and different approaches to estimating either the size of this market or the effect of legalization can therefore vary substantially. Further complicating matters, different approaches make different implicit or explicit assumptions about exactly what policy change is under consideration, such as whether legalization applies nationwide, under both federal and state law (the scenario we consider), or in just one state, just for marijuana, and just under state law (the California experiment). Our estimates are in the middle of available numbers.
32 Sample Negative
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA IS A DANGEROUS MISTAKE

1. LEGALIZATION MEANS MARIJUANA TRAFFICKING VIOLENCE WILL ESCALATE Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, formerly a local, state, federal, military prosecutor and law professor, September 13, 2010, Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No, Legal Memorandum #56, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.heritage.org/Research/ Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No The scientific literature is clear that marijuana is addictive and that its use significantly impairs bodily and mental functions. Marijuana use is associated with memory loss, cancer, immune system deficiencies, heart disease, and birth defects, among other conditions. Even where decriminalized, marijuana trafficking remains a source of violence, crime, and social disintegration. 2. LEGALIZATION WOULD INCREASE CONSUMPTION AND GUT TAX REVENUE Bob Ellis, Staff Writer, July 7, 2010, Study: Drug Legalization Would Reduce Tax Revenue, Increase Consumption, Dakota Voice, Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis. The Daily Caller reports a new study by the Rand Corporation finds the legalization of recreational marijuana use in California could sharply reduce prices for the drug and the tax revenues touted by proponents of drug legalization. The report, aptly titled Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets, found that prices for legal pot could drop as much as 80%, from $375 per ounce today to $38 an ounce. That would drastically undercut the theoretical tax revenue drug legalization proponents are using to seduce Californians. Even with a fixed-rate-per-ounce tax, the study found this could result in production of smaller quantities of highpotency marijuana which would still bring in less revenue than the rosy pro-drug projections. 3. THE COSTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, formerly a local, state, federal, military prosecutor and law professor, September 13, 2010, Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No, Legal Memorandum #56, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.heritage.org/Research/ Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No The federal government shares these concerns. Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), recently stated, Marijuana legalization, for any purpose, is a non-starter in the Obama Administration. The Administrationwidely viewed as more liberal than any other in recent memory and, for a time, as embodying the hopes of pro-legalization activistshas weighed the costs and benefits and concluded that marijuana legalization would compromise public health and safety. 4. LEGAL MARIJUANA LEADS TO DRUGGED DRIVING ACCIDENTS Dr. John A. Howard, senior fellow of the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, April 16, 2010, Legalized Marijuana: A Pending Disaster, Heartland Institute White Paper, Accessed 10-12-2010, http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/27488.pdf In 2002 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Highway Traffic Commission reported on their national study of automobile drivers who were under the influence of illegal drugs. They estimated that there were nine million such drivers and called upon the states to adopt criminal laws setting strict standards against the presence of illegal drugs in the drivers body. Driving under the influence of drugs is a growing national problem, particularly among young people, but drugged drivers are not detected nearly as often as drunk drivers, the report noted. In an article titled How Safe Is Pot? Newsweek (January 7, 1989) noted, Most investigators now agree that marijuana does share with alcohol the danger of impairing coordination and judgment among its users.
33 Sample Negative
LEGALIZING MARIJUANA WILL LEAD TO HARD DRUG USE

1. MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION CREATES AN OFFICIAL GATEWAY TO HARDER DRUGS Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, formerly a local, state, federal, military prosecutor and law professor, September 13, 2010, Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No, Legal Memorandum #56, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.heritage.org/Research/ Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No Citizens also should not overlook what may be the greatest harms of marijuana legalization: increased addiction to and use of harder drugs. In addition to marijuanas harmful effects on the body and relationship to criminal conduct, it is a gateway drug that can lead users to more dangerous drugs. Prosecutors, judges, police officers, detectives, parole or probation officers, and even defense attorneys know that the vast majority of defendants arrested for violent crimes test positive for illegal drugs, including marijuana. They also know that marijuana is the starter drug of choice for most criminals. Whereas millions of Americans consume moderate amounts of alcohol without ever moving on to dangerous drugs, marijuana use and cocaine use are strongly correlated. 2. STUDIES PROVING THE DANGERS OF MARIJUANA HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC Dr. John A. Howard, senior fellow of the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, April 16, 2010, Legalized Marijuana: A Pending Disaster, Heartland Institute White Paper, Accessed 10-12-2010, http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/27488.pdf The gathering momentum of the marijuana legalization juggernaut lends urgency to this effort to unveil the truth about the years of marijuana research conducted in many nations which consistently has discovered harmful consequences of smoking marijuana, as serious as those declared by the French National Academy of Medicine. The final point to be made in this preface is the most troublesome of all. Reports of this research and other circumstances that argue against the use of marijuana have largely been withheld from the American people by a news media blackout. 3. DECRIMINALIZATION SENDS A DANGEROUS PRO-DRUG MESSAGE TO THE YOUTH Jaime Esparza, district attorney for Texas' 34th Judicial District, which includes El Paso, January 18, 2009, Drug legalization is not the answer, El Paso Times (Texas), Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis. Decriminalization is not good public policy from a health and public-safety standpoint. A legitimate national discussion and open dialogue should focus on how to decrease both the supply and demand for drugs through a variety of prevention, interdiction, and treatment initiatives. The many consequences of drug use are ugly, no question. We, therefore, can not deviate from the message that drugs, in all forms, are harmful, and it is not lawful to produce, distribute, or consume them. We cannot afford to send a message of tolerance for drug use of any kind. This is especially the wrong message for America's youth. Leaders on the front lines in the battle against drug addiction -- in health care, education, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement -- can attest to the devastating affects of harmful drugs. 4. MARIJUANA IS CLOSER TO HARD DRUGS THAN ADVOCATES ADMIT Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, formerly a local, state, federal, military prosecutor and law professor, September 13, 2010, Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No, Legal Memorandum #56, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.heritage.org/Research/ Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No Marijuana advocates have had some success peddling the notion that marijuana is a soft drug, similar to alcohol, and fundamentally different from hard drugs like cocaine or heroin. It is true that marijuana is not the most dangerous of the commonly abused drugs, but that is not to say that it is safe. Indeed, marijuana shares more in common with the hard drugs than it does with alcohol.
34 Sample Negative
DRUG COURTS ARE AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE

1. DRUG COURTS ARE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION Andrew Clevenger, Staff writer, October 13, 2010, Drug court graduates grateful for program, Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), p. C1. Drug courts offer an alternative to simply sentencing every offender to prison, which is expensive and has a high chance of recidivism, he said. "This program gives us the opportunity to change things," he said. "There aren't many programs that get the bang for the buck that drug courts do." Mercer Circuit Judge Derek Swope, who presides over that county's drug court, called upon Kanawha County to set an example for the rest of the state. 2. DRUG COURTS REDUCE ADDICTION AND RECIDIVISM Ben B. Tucker, Deputy Director, State, Local, and Tribal Affairs Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration, CQ Congressional Testimony, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Drug courts combine assessment, judicial interaction, accountability, monitoring and supervision, graduated sanctions and rewards, and treatment and recovery support services. Numerous evaluations over many years have shown drug courts are cost-effective alternatives to traditional incarceration. Data also indicates drug courts prevent most offenders, who successfully complete their individualized programs, from committing new crimes and returning to drug use. 3. COMMUNITY-BASED DRUG COURTS REDUCE LOCAL CRIME AND PROVIDE TREATMENT Benjamin Tucker, Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing; "Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders" Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Another type of specialty court is community court. These problem-solving courts can effectively serve the needs of misdemeanant drug-using offenders. Community courts are neighborhood-focused courts that address local problems, including misdemeanor drug possession, shoplifting, vandalism, and assault. Like drug courts, community courts link addicted offenders to judicially monitored drug treatment, and they make use of a broader array of mandates, such as job training and community restitution. These courts strive to create new relationships with neighborhood stakeholders, such as residents, merchants, churches, and schools. Furthermore, they pilot new and more proactive approaches to public safety, rather than only responding to crime after it has occurred. 4. ALTERNATIVE DRUG COURTS REDUCE DRUG USE AND ADDICTION James Burch Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration, CQ Congressional Testimony, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. During FY 2010, BJA is directing $57 million in funding for problem-solving courts through the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program and the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program. The FY 2011 Budget Request, also $57 million, combines these two successful programs into a single Problem-Solving Courts Initiative, allowing state, local, and tribal jurisdictions increased flexibility in funding strategies that address unique local needs and that can expand collaboration among drug courts, mental health, and substance abuse providers. Research funded by OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and others verifies that problem-solving courts significantly improve mental health and substance abuse treatment outcomes, substantially reduce crime, and produce greater cost benefits.
35 Sample Negative
DRUG COURTS ARE AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE

1. ALTERNATIVE COURTS DIRECTLY LEAD TO TREATMENT AND REDUCE RECIDIVISM James Burch Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration, CQ Congressional Testimony, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Many of today's court cases involve individuals with medical, psychological, and social problems such as substance abuse, homelessness, or lack of access to mental health treatment, which drive criminal behavior. However, many adults and juveniles have been steered away from further offending by programs that use the coercive and monitoring power of the court. Traditional court practices have not always been shown to be particularly effective in addressing the underlying social and psychological issues that propel individuals into involvement with the justice system. Problem-solving forums such as drug, mental health, and reentry courts that rely on collaboration with social service, public health, and other criminal justice agencies, have been shown to be effective in addressing these underlying problems and in reducing recidivism. 2. DRUG COURTS COMBINE TREATMENT WITH ENFORCEMENT TO REDUCE DRUG ABUSE Benjamin Tucker, Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing; "Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders" Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Drug courts combine assessment, judicial interaction, accountability, monitoring and supervision, graduated sanctions and rewards, and treatment and recovery support services. Numerous evaluations over many years have shown drug courts are cost-effective alternatives to traditional incarceration. Data also indicates drug courts prevent most offenders, who successfully complete their individualized programs, from committing new crimes and returning to drug use. The President's FY 2011 Budget request provides for expansion, in scope and size, of such problem solving courts, and we should concentrate efforts on increasing their impact on high-risk, high-need offenders who may be prison-bound, and who, due to continuing substance abuse and criminal activity, continue to cycle through the criminal justice system. 3. DRUG COURTS ARE DIRECTLY TIED TO TREATMENT SERVICES James Burch Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration, CQ Congressional Testimony, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Research findings show that drug courts can reduce recidivism and promote other positive cost-saving outcomes. Various factors affect a drug court program's success, such as proper assessment and treatment, the role assumed by the judge and the nature of offender interactions with the judge, and other variable influences such as drug use trends, staff turnover and resource allocation. 4. DRUG COURTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN EFFECTIVE FOR OVER 20 YEARS Benjamin Tucker, Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing; "Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders" Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Drug courts have been evaluated for approximately 20 years. Based on these evaluations, we have seen drug courts make adjustments and improve their models of operation. This same approach of evaluating and adjusting must be conducted for other promising alternative approaches to incarceration being employed across the country to reach maturity and scalability. This can be done by supporting demonstration projects and pilots, be they pre-trial, deferred entry of judgment, or community supervision. When implemented effectively, the criminal and juvenile justice systems can deter drug use and dealing, reduce drug availability, steer users toward getting the help they need and, as a result, help make our neighborhoods safer.
West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs THERE ARE MANY ALTERNATIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MEASURES
36
1. BACK ON TRACK IS AN EXAMPLE OF ALTERNATIVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES James Burch Acting Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Alternatives to Incarceration, CQ Congressional Testimony, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. One such program, Back on Track, in San Francisco is a problem- solving court aimed at reducing recidivism among low-level drug- trafficking defendants. Back on Track combines strict accountability with real opportunities for self-improvement. Participants must find employment, enroll in school full time, and comply with all the terms of an individualized Personal Responsibility Plan (PRP). Over a two-year period, Back on Track has reduced recidivism among its graduates to less than 10 percent. 2. HOPE CAN REDUCE DRUG USE THROUGH THE TERMS OF PROBATION Angela Hawken, Associate Professor, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing, Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. HOPE has been subjected to two evaluations, including a randomized controlled trial of high-risk primarily methamphetamine-using probationers. These evaluations were conducted with support from the National Institute of Justice and the Smith Richardson Foundation. Evaluation findings from both studies show that HOPE probationers have lower drug use, and fewer no-shows for probation appointments, new arrests, probation revocations, and days incarcerated, compared with probationers assigned to probation-as-usual. 3. DIVERSION PROGRAMS PROVIDE TREATMENT AND SHOULD BE EXPANDED Harold A. Pollack, Professor University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, July 22, 2010, Statement Before the Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, CQ Congressional Testimony, July 22, 2010, Alternatives to Incarceration, Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis. Drug courts and related diversion programs provide better help and monitoring for individual offenders. They do not-and probably cannot, as currently configuredmarkedly reduce the U.S. prison population. An array of diversion programs have been fielded based on two well-documented premises: (a) Treatment can significantly reduce drug use, and (b) Reduced drug use produces marked reductions in crime. Interventions built on these two premises encourage or coerce drug-involved offenders into treatment. A large research literature shows that these interventions indeed reduce drug use and associated criminal activity and are highly cost-effective. Expanding and improving these programs deserves high policy priority. 4. PROBATION AND PAROLE WITH TREATMENT REDUCES USE Angela Hawken, Associate Professor, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, July 22, 2010, Testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Hearing, Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders Congressional Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis Nexis. Probation and parole supervision are intended to serve as an alternative to incarceration: In lieu of a prison term, an offender promises to comply with a set of conditions, and an officer is assigned to monitor enforcement, with authority to report violations to the court or Parole Board for possible sanctions. This avoids the cost of incarceration (and the damage it can inflict on the offender's chances of successfully integrating into law-abiding society) and promises rehabilitative benefits from requiring the offender to live lawfully in his or her home community.

Nov-Dec Drugs Part 2

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Nov-Dec Drugs Part 2

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs Legalization Affirmative

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs Legalization Affirmative

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

DRUG ADDICTION IS A DISEASE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

DRUG ADDICTION IS A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS MORE EFFECTIVE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

ONLY TREATMENT WORKS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS JUST INCREASE PRISON POPULATIONS

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A RACIST ENTERPRISE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

THE WAR ON DRUGS UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

LEGALIZATION REDUCES CRIME

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

LEGALIZATION FREES UP LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

LEGALIZATION SOLVES STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

DECRIMINALIZATION BENEFITS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

CURRENT DRUG POLICY HAS SHIFTED TO PUBLIC HEALTH

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEADS TO TREATMENT

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

DRUG ADDICTION FOSTERS CRIME

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

DRUG ABUSE SPREADS DISEASE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

A COMBINATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IS BEST

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

A COMBINATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IS BEST

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS NEEDED WITHIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS NEEDED WITHIN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

LEGALIZATION INCREASES DRUG USE AND ABUSE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

LEGALIZATION SAVINGS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE POLICY

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

LEGALIZING MARIJUANA IS A DANGEROUS MISTAKE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

LEGALIZING MARIJUANA WILL LEAD TO HARD DRUG USE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

DRUG COURTS ARE AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE

West Coast Publishing November / December 2010 LD Drugs

DRUG COURTS ARE AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE

S-ar putea să vă placă și