,
Introduction
With the surge in the number of drug users in North America in the past 50 years, the topic of drug control policy is receiving more and more attention from the media and public in general. However, there is no existing consensus regarding the solution to this problem as different groups advocate for different approaches from their political or sociological perspective. The only existing consensus between the groups is that substance abuse is indeed a threat to society in general. Howard Saul Becker, a famous sociologist who currently resides in U.S. proposed a very interesting, although controversial, perspective to the approach of the drug problem in his recent article “Drugs: what are they?” The goal of this short research essay is to explore and analyze his proposal under the concept of sociological imagination. A clear summary and evaluation will provide a better picture to his standpoint and allow people to see that he is indeed right on the button on many of the issues surrounding the current drug policy.
Summary
Well known in the academic word for his unusual plain style of writing, Becker again utilized his unorthodox style of presentation to carry his message across. He does not dispute the fact that growing substance abuse in society is a problem, but rather suggested that the subject has not been properly interpreted. In his article, he stated “I begin with my own country, as an example which will let me suggest an orientation for our discussions. The United States, as is well known, has a very large “drug problem.” The problem is real, but it has been conceptualized improperly. The U.S. government defines the problem as one of “drug” or “narcotic” use, and goes on to conceptualizes this area of human behavior as a police problem” (Becker, 2001). Instead he argued that drugs have more to do with the moral of society than science. By presenting the drug problem as a police matter, he pointed out; the U.S. government has taken the wrong approach.
In response to the situation, Becker proposed that “drugs” are not a scientific or pharmacological category but rather a reflection of society's attitude towards the substance being used. That attitude can often be ambiguous or vague and are subjected to change as society progresses. Therefore, the category which society decides to label a particular substance will influence how people will deal with it, which in turn affects how that substance affects them. Based on his own view, he argued that the real solution is redefining the phenomena involved. The major obstacle that prevents this from happening is that those who have the power to make the change have no incentive to do so.
He further emphasizes his point that drugs are defined by moral attitudes in the main text of his article. An example used was that substance injection would normally cause people to frown up it, but if the purpose is to heal illness or suppress pain, then the practice would be accepted and even welcomed. Swallowing is morally neutral but becomes objectionable when the purpose of swallowing is illicit. These two examples out of many found in his article were used to illustrate and reinforce his viewpoint regarding the ambiguity of the definition of drugs. Words like “drugs”, “medicine”, and “narcotics” are important because they either outlaw or legitimize the intake of substances. Frequent reclassification of substances further demonstrated his concept.
Only the government of a state has the power to alter these definitions of substances. Becker stated that governments often attempt to make believable and credible reasons for its classification, mostly through a combination of science and morality. Often these classifications are made with administrative and political considerations in mind. He considers the drug policy of U.S. the hostage of its election campaigns. Previous attempts at moving away from the criminalization of soft drugs such as marijuana have failed and those who suggested such ideas were perceived as weak and soft on crime. Despite some obvious failures in the banning of “narcotics” and “war on drugs”, the U.S. government continues to defend its policy and shows no sign of compromise. This has prevented the therapeutic use of some substances in the medical field. Lastly, Becker suggested that U.S. follows the European model by delegating authority to enforce and classify substance policy to professional medical organizations instead of the police.
Evaluation
Overall Becker's arguments are logically valid and sound. While it is debatable whether granting police forces the authority to deal with the drug problem is a mistake or not, the U.S. federal government is coming under increasing criticisms for its war on drugs. Traditionally, the policy is one of the containment model (Hartlyn, 1988). Former U.S. president George Bush Senior stated “The logic is simple…the cheapest and safest way to eradicate narcotics is to destroy them at their source…we need to wipe out crops wherever they are grown and take out labs wherever they exist” (Sharpe, 1992). While this policy had met some initial success, its overall effectiveness is becoming increasingly questionable.
Drug control methods, according to Reuter, can shift the production and trafficking patterns of the drug trades (1992). The yearly production of cocaine in South America is estimated at 1,000 metric tons per year while the consumption rate ranges from 300 to 500 tons around the world, leaving the market highly saturated (Anderson, 1993). This is a clear indication that drug traffickers and producers in South America have become used to absorbing the loss of government seizures and increased production to compensate. By definition the drug control policy as a “war”, it would imply that victory can be achieved when substances use has been recorded to date back as far as 3000 B.C.E and nearly impossible to stop because of the emergence of new substances. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) in 2003 stated “This report shows that the volume of juvenile arrests for drug abuse violation involving all drug types, collectively, increased 22.9 percent from 1994 to 2003. When an individual is arrested for a drug abuse violation, the reporting agency indicates the type of drug in one of the four categories: opium or cocaine and their derivatives, marijuana, synthetic narcotics, and dangerous non-narcotic drugs. The number of arrests of juveniles for three of the four drug types increased……….” This report clearly illustrated the significant problem that exists in the U.S. drug policy, one which place too much emphasizes on the supply side of the equation and largely neglected the side of the substance users.
Most people would agree that a substance by itself is neutral, while is it the method and purpose of consumption that would make it illegitimate. Marijuana is often used by many as a pleasure or relaxation drug, while it also has a confirm therapeutic effect in helping chronic pain patients. If the purpose was simply pleasure seeking, then it would draw some criticism from parts of society. However when used in the latter role, society by and large accepts the practice. The effect of a drug is largely determined by the user's expectation and setting of use. Becker's viewpoint in light of this fact is quite acceptable.
Application to Current Drug Control Policy
By utilizing and incorporating Becker's proposal into the current criminal justice system, there is a significant potential that radical reform will occur as a result. The definition and classification of substances will without a doubt be faced with sweeping changes. Drugs in this sense will no longer be viewed as a scientific category but rather depend on the context of use. Medical conditions, mental well being, daily practice, religion and tradition of substance users might all come into play if these ideas were to be put under serious consideration by the authorities.
The suggestion that a professional medical body should provide oversight for drug users might bring a dramatic decrease in the number of prisoners jailed for narcotic offenses, reducing the load for the overstressed prison network in United States. Some of the efforts put into eliminating the source of “illegal drugs” can then by redirected to prevention and rehabilitation programs, reducing the incidences of drug overdose. Instead of focusing on destroying the origin which is obviously ineffective at this point, greater attention will no doubt be paid to the demand part of the equation.
Such radical reforms will not be without its difficulties in when put into practice. For one, the government attitude towards drugs has been relatively unchanged in the past 50 years. The problem with putting things in motion is the large number of conservatives in U.S. that would view such reform as “soft” on criminal activities. Public fear of drug related crimes might also hinder the process of implementing changes. Political parties looking to obtain the votes of the more conservative segment of society is unlikely to push drug policy reforms forward due to the fear of negative labeling.
Conclusion
Becker presented some very sound ideas to the possible future U.S. drug policy reforms. Varies studies have supported his view that the current direction is inefficient and minimally effective at best. Despite granting police and military the authority to intercept and deal with the drug problem, it seems that overall drug use has become more widespread in recent years along with the availability of drugs. These proposals by Becker certainly bring a fresh perspective in how society views and classifies substances as time goes on, perhaps the general public will give drug reform some serious considerations in order to adapt to the ever growing substance abuse problem.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1993). “War on drugs waged in air and on ground”. Air Force Times. p. 13
Becker, S. H. (2001). “Drugs: What are they?”. pp. 11-20 in Howard S. Becker, ed.
URL: http://home.earthlink.net/~hsbecker/drugs.html
Hartlyn, J. (1988). “Commentary on Bagley's “The New Hundred Years War?” U.S. National Security and the War on Drugs in Latin America.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs. Vol 30. Number 1
Reuter, P. (1992). “The Limit and Consequences of U.S. Foreign Drug Control Efforts”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol 521
Sharpe, K. E. (1988). “The Drug War: Going After Supply, A Commentary”. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs. Vol 30. Number 2&3.
