Drug Law Top Ten

Drug Law Top Ten

 

Judge James Gray, in his recent Los Angeles Times Column proposed a list of what he believes most people would agree are the top ten goals of our drug laws. Bearing in mind his cautions that not everyone will agree to all of these and that they are in no particular order, here are his drug law top ten:

 

• 1. Reduce the exposure of drugs to and usage of drugs by children;
•  
• 2. Stop or materially reduce the violence that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs, especially to police officers and innocent by-standers;
•  
• 3. Stop or materially reduce the corruption of public officials, individual people and companies, and especially children that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs;
•  
• 4. Stop or materially reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase drugs and by those under the influence of drugs;
•  
• 5. Stop or materially reduce the flow of drugs into our country;
•  
• 6. Reduce health risks to people who use drugs;
•  
• 7. Maintain and reaffirm our civil liberties;
•  
• 8. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons;
•  
• 9. Stop or materially reduce the flow of guns out of our country and into countries south of our border;
•  
• 10. Increase respect for our laws and institutions.

 

While I was teaching Controlled Substances Law, I prepared a shorter list of reasons why we have drug prohibition. My question “Why do we have…?” is slightly different from his “What do we expect them to do?”, and mine is shorter and less nuanced since it was intended to spur a discussion among naïve students in the first class of the semester, but the lists overlap a lot. My list of reasons why we have drug laws:

 

• 1. Eliminate, or greatly reduce, the presence of intoxicating drugs in our society;
•  
• 2. Prevent drug users from harming other people;
•  
• 3. Preserve the health and well-being of those who would use drugs;
•  
• 4. And establish and proclaim a moral standard which people should affirm even if their behavior does not conform to it.

 

The big differences (other than the amount of detail) between the lists are that Judge Gray focuses on the behavior of those affected by the law and I focused more on the motivations of the legislators. And he focuses on those affected by the law, while I believe that Congress focused on the drugs as if they were the actors and ignored those affected.

 

The judge is diffident about the accuracy of his list (unnecessarily so: his thirty years experience in the daily application of those laws probably makes him one of our leading experts on what they actually do), but it really doesn’t matter. His list is a wonderful tool.

 

In many ways, the reformer’s biggest task is to convince the people he comes in contact with daily. Somewhere on his list – which is marvelously non-confrontational – is something that you and your audience can agree on. I don’t matter if your audience is a friend sharing a beer or a Sunday School class or a Rotary Club. Once you have agreed that one or more of these goals is important, then a discussion about how to achieve it becomes easy. Most groups can come up with a list of solutions, many of which are more effective and less expensive than is drug prohibition. Your goal is accomplished indirectly (remember The Art of War?) and without confrontation.

 

My list highlights the usefulness of this approach by comparison. I was dealing with a small group of students in a classroom situation where I could compel them to participate, even if unwillingly; and I was working under the time pressure of a single class period. I could use confrontation, anger, and even embarrassment as tools (does this reveal something about your profs you didn’t know?). In voluntary situations like we have in reform attempts, those tools are not available. The judge’s list, by allowing us to play nice, is much better.

 

Once a goal is selected for discussion, what do you want to do with it? Ultimately, you want to answer three questions, even if the approach is indirect:

 

1. How well does the current drug law achieve that result?

 

2. What costs does the use of drug prohibition impose? Be creative here: My own personal pet peeve is the requirement that I show ID and sign a register every month when I am “allowed” to buy less than a month’s supply of decongestant – and that law really doesn’t affect the amount of methamphetamine on the street at all.

 

3. What are the alternatives and what would they cost?

 

This kind of structured argument can be very effective. First, it is positive and goal-directed. Second, it can be very specific and concrete, avoiding sloganeering by either side. Third, it provides people with a plan of action.

 

The judge has given us a great tool with his list. Let’s all learn it thoroughly and start using it to frame our own arguments.

 

[My list included the use of law to state desired moral principles. Discussing that was out of place in this piece, but soon I will compose an entire screed on the baleful and malicious effects of religion and religiosity on politics, government, and law. BCT]