Grounded in evidence or a puritanical legacy: a critique of twenty-first-century US drug policy

Abstract

The federal government of the USA asserts that its national drug policy is based on empirical and scientific evidence rather than ideology. However, the recently published ‘War on Drugs’ (2011) report declared that the global war on drugs has failed, producing devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Accordingly, this paper focuses on a number of key positions that are embedded in the US drug policy and seeks to reconcile these with the empirical evidence that exists; such as it is. In the absence of supporting empirical evidence to underpin a policy goal, one must logically consider that there are alternative, hidden drivers and the authors can detect (at least) three such drivers of US drug policy. The first of these is the influence of religion; US drug policy is influenced by a Puritanical legacy. The second is that of societal views of drugs and drug users per se and how such views invariably associate certain drugs with specific ethnic minority groups. The third is that of maintaining vested (special) interests, for example, the private (for profit) prison system. Current US drug policy is even more puzzling given the growing body of ‘global’ evidence that viable, efficacious, cheaper, more humane, and ultimately, logical evidence-based policy options exist. As a result, the authors add their ‘voices’ to those of others who have advocated a genuinely evidence-based drug policy rather than a social policy influenced by theology, xenophobia and the ongoing profits of certain special interest groups.

Keywords:

• US National Drug Policy
• global war on drugs
• hidden drivers

Notes

1. From the time of the US Civil War (1861–1865) to the end of the nineteenth century, the use and sale of opium, morphine, cocaine and other psychoactive drugs were legal and common. Opium was available with or without a prescription and was an ingredient in many patent medicines, including various pain-killers, cough mixtures and teething syrups for infants. Cocaine was also used medicinally, as well as in soft drinks and wine.

2. Though it should be acknowledged that the states of Washington and Colorado have both recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

3. Since standard data sources are not available for the Prohibition period and the body of empirical literature in this area is limited, thus any interpretation of the evidence in this area should be undertaken with an appropriate degree of caution.

4. And the evidence indicates that such arrests are a reasonable proxy for alcohol consumption (Dills et al., 2005).

5. Namely, alcohol-related liver disease, chronic hepatitis C, or/and chronic hepatitis B and D, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, autoimmune hepatitis, diseases that damage or destroy bile ducts, inherited diseases, drugs, toxins and infections.

6. In comparison, Russia had the second highest, at 577 per 100,000, Canada was 123rd in the world at 117 per 100,000, and China had 120 per 100,000 (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2013).

7. For instance, the 2012 National Drug Control Strategy (White House: Office of National Drug Control Strategy, recovered 2013) refers to the ‘extreme notion of drug legalization’.

8. Coincidently, many of the private, for profit, prison corporations are active members of the American Legislative Exchange Council.

9. Tashkins' group of researchers/clinicians have studied the effects of marijuana for over 30 years and the Federal health and drug enforcement agency have widely used these findings to advance the argument that marijuana is significantly linked to increased risk of lung cancer. Findings from their latest and largest study of its kind (funded by the NIH/NIDA) unexpectedly found that regular and heavy use of marijuana would be associated with lung cancer. In place of this association, they found a suggestion of a protective effect! Participants in Tashkin's control group, who smoked both tobacco and marijuana, were found to be at slightly lower risk than their tobacco-only counterparts. Hashibe et al. (2006) state

Our results may have been affected by selection bias or error in measuring lifetime exposure and confounder histories; but they suggest that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits. (emphasis added)