decriminalization no longer a fringe movement

A mix of former global political figures and business executives are calling for an end, of sorts, to the War on Drugs. The Guardian's Jamie Doward reports:

Former presidents, prime ministers, eminent economists and leading members of the business community will unite behind a call for a shift in global drug policy. The Global Commission on Drug Policy will host a press conference at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York to launch a report that describes the drug war as a failure and calls for a "paradigm shift" in approaching the issue.

Those backing the call include Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico; George Papandreou, former prime minister of Greece; César Gaviria, former president of Colombia; Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general; Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil; George Shultz, former US secretary of state; Javier Solana, former EU high representative; Virgin tycoon Richard Branson; and Paul Volcker, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

The commission will call for drug policy to move from being focused on criminal justice towards a public health approach. The global advocacy organisation Avaaz, which has nine million members, will present a petition in support of the commission's recommendations to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon.

But don't expect an armistice--or even a truce--any time soon. Jacob Sullum explains:

As the report makes clear, the commission, whether for ideological or tactical reasons, is not prepared to renounce the use of force to stop people from consuming politically incorrect intoxicants. It wants to lighten up on users and low-level suppliers while cracking down on "violent criminal organizations...in ways that undermine their power and reach while prioritizing the reduction of violence and intimidation." But it is prohibition that enriches and empowers such organizations while encouraging them to be violent. As the Mexican government has vividly demonstrated since 2006, fighting drug cartels escalates the violence associated with the black market, which will persist as long as supplying people with the drugs they want remains illegal. The commission knows this: It quotes a study concluding that "drug-related violence and high homicide rates are likely a natural consequence of drug prohibition" and that "increasingly sophisticated and well-resourced methods of disrupting drug distribution networks may unintentionally increase violence."

Violence that continues apace.

legalization and time: another LD Mailbag

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion regarding the role of legalization in the illegal drugs resolution of November / December 2010.

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

For instance, via email:

One of my opponents kept arguing (when I was Aff) that legalization had nothing to do with the debate. This confused me, but I thought it was just something with her. Then I get a judge who, upon being asked her paradigm, said that legalization is nonresolutional. What is all this about? I thought that was what the debate was about. What grounds, then, does the Aff have? And I mentioned what you said about manufacture and distribution could be illegal, but apparently that's still nonresolutional....

In my Aff case I talked about how drug abusers aren't guilty of a crime as they do not harm others; if they do then the law can interfere. However, my opponents said that since the resolution says "illegal drugs," drug abusers are clearly guilty of a crime, and apparently I don't have the power to change the drugs' legality.

In one sense, full legalization could nonresolutional--after all, if there exists no such substance as an "illegal drug," then there's nothing to debate. Flawless victory, Negative.

However, some form of decriminalization seems necessary, thanks to the word "not." I've argued many times before that making abuse (shooting up, smoking, inhaling, sniffing, ingesting) a matter of public health still gives the Negative ground to pursue manufacturers and distributors of illegal drugs.

Now I'm starting to think there may be another way. Let's look at the temporal aspect--how affirming and negating play out in time.

If we talk in terms of "possible worlds," we don't concern ourselves with time. The resolution is or is not true, always and forever. Thus, illegal drugs are always illegal, and full legalization (as opposed to partial decriminalization) is completely nonresolutional.

However, if we talk in terms of the status quo, with an eye toward the future (thus with time as part of the equation), then the Aff can argue the resolution can be true now--we "ought to" legalize drugs at some point in the future, in order to stop treating them as a matter of criminal justice--and that once legalization occurs, the resolution isn't false, but unnecessary.

In this line of thinking, legalization--complete and utter--is a valid Affirmative option.

What do you think?

cross-examining the illegal drugs resolution

Readers have been asking about potential CX questions for the illegal drugs resolution. I've been a little leery about posting them, since no general set of questions is going to apply in most circumstances; cases vary in so many ways. My own approach to CX is more situational and impromptu--but then, I usually have a general strategy heading in.

So, here are a few things to ask about, for both sides, whenever your opponent assumes or glides over them. Note: these are not the questions themselves. Frame your questions for strategic advantage; see the example below, and this note.

1. What justifies criminal punishment? Who determines what proper punishment should be?
2. What limits punishment, if anything?
3. What is the nature of the society in the resolution? Will the outcome change if the society is democratic, authoritarian, or a constitutional monarchy, among many other options?
4. Why are illegal drugs illegal?
5. What does abuse mean? Is it mere misuse, or a pattern of sustained, debilitating misuse?
6. What are some of the potentially distasteful options for public health treatment?
7. What are some empirical examples of nations or governments that have tried a public health approach?
8. Does the phrase "illegal drugs" include legal drugs used off-label or without a prescription?
9. Is there an agreed-upon approach in the international / medical community?

One of the primary goals of CX is to expose the flaw or weakness in the opposing advocacy, which is why one of the best CX techniques is a species of reductio called the reductio ad ridiculum or reductio ad incommodum. Here's an example.

AFF: Your criterion is utilitarianism, correct?
NEG: Right.
AFF: Under that criterion, how do we justify criminal punishment?
NEG: By measuring its effect.
AFF: And how do we do that?
NEG: By looking at whether society is overall improved.
AFF: But that's hard to do, isn't it, when you have an essentially harmful response to a harm? For instance, how does it improve society to imprison drug abusers?
NEG: I guess I mean that it reduces crime. It keeps criminals from committing more crimes while imprisoned [incapacitation], and also warns others away from committing crimes, or from spreading their drug habit to friends or family [deterrence].
AFF: But what if the most effective way to incapacitate drug offenders (and to frighten away future abusers) is to shoot stoners on sight?
NEG: But that's ridiculous.
AFF: Why?

At this point, the Affirmative has given the Neg several awkward choices.

The Neg could argue for some kind of "side constraint" on a utilitarian approach to punishment--that some punishments are just too awful--which might help the Aff show why a deontological approach is superior, because it rules out such punishments on principle, rather than ad hoc.

The Neg could also try to argue that society won't flourish with the population living in fear of summary execution--but will likely have no evidence, and, more important, no bright line for distinguishing more or less draconian punishments (and how they might affect society more broadly).

It's also quite possible that the Neg will swallow the bitter pill of consistency and try to defend a draconian approach as legitimate.

Regardless, the Affirmative has the Neg on the defensive, which is the point of CX.

That's all I have for now. In the comments, suggest questions (or lines of questions) that might work--or have worked for you.

the most destructive drug

Mentioned in an article that may be of interest to students debating the current LD resolution, a new Lancet study has determined the overall most destructive drug.

Hint: most places, it's legal.

When drunk in excess, alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin.

But experts said it would be impractical and incorrect to outlaw alcohol.

"We cannot return to the days of prohibition," said Leslie King, an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and one of the study's authors. "Alcohol is too embedded in our culture and it won't go away."

King said countries should target problem drinkers, not the vast majority of people who indulge in a drink or two. He said governments should consider more education programs and raising the price of alcohol so it isn't as widely available.

Non-rhetorical question: Why not take the same approach to all drugs?


Added: Sullum (linked above) highlights and critiques the study.

from the retribution vault

The November/December resolution for 2010 invites us to contrast a public health approach to a criminal justice approach to illegal drug abuse. One of the most fruitful ways to address the conflict is through the lens of retributive justice.

I haven't sketched out an entire position for each side--I'm too busy helping my debate team figure out their cases--but I do have time to post some links to previous writing on the subject. Enjoy.

1. Gerard Bradley's take on punishment as a way of maintaining "equal legal liberty for all."

2. Sharon Dolovich's Rawlsian perspective arrives at a similar destination by a different route.

3. There's more than one kind of retributivism, mind you.

4. A while back I wrote a case about plea bargaining that employed several good retributive arguments.

5. On the other hand, how about a virtue ethics approach?

LD mailbag: what the drug resolution is all about

Recently I received a string of great questions about the illegal drugs resolution that deserve reply in a complete post. Hence, the latest LD Mailbag, non-email edition. Enjoy.

Hey,
I am new to debate and we have to learn LD first and she threw the topic on us and showed us how to format it but i am so stuck!!!!!! I dont want to quit debate but i am so lost... I am stuck on Aff and Neg cases... the cases are due tomorrow! I am so screwed!

1. Don't panic.
2. Have you read about how to write a case?
3. Seriously: breathe. And keep reading.

Neil Mehta said...

Hey Jim,
First of all I'd like to say that your blog helps me and all my friends start our cases each year. But this year, especially this topic, I'm having trouble grasping what the resolution actually means and what we are supposed to be debating
Thanks for the help.

Public health is a largely preventive approach to medical matters that affect the community--harms inflicted by disease, malnutrition, environmental hazards, and the like. Its primary tools are education, inoculation, sanitation, and regulation. Criminal justice, on the other hand, is society's response to harms inflicted by individuals. It employs punishment for many reasons, chief among them retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and deterrence.

Which is a more effective approach? That's the utilitarian or pragmatic (and hence empirical) question.

Which is a more just, fair, or moral approach? That's where we bring in arguments based on rights, liberty, the "harm principle," and more.

All kinds of questions circulate around us. What is crime? What is the purpose of punishment? Is drug addiction a disease? When, if ever, is the state justified in forcing someone to seek treatment?

Anonymous said...

Hey Jim, your site has always been very helpful to me, and I'd like to sincerely thank you for all the help; the articles you post really jumpstart my cases.

As for this resolution: I'm having a really hard time grasping what the rez is asking of us, and which philosophy each side pertains to. I feel as though both aff and neg can argue many of the same philosophers and things, and its really confusing me. Both sides can use Kant, Societal Welfare, Rawls, the Social Contract, and something to the effect of: "deterrence of crime is necessary."

AFF:
I guess the most stable affirmative ground would be proving that public health is effective in reducing drug use, and that criminal justice isn't.. and then linking it all together with claims to Justice or Societal Welfare

NEG:
I guess the most stable negative ground would be proving that public health does not actually deter drug use, and that crime only has one solution: criminal justice.

Both seem to clash well, but I don't think they get to the heart of the rez, which is: what should be done of the individuals who commit these actions.. and whether those individuals are responsible for their actions.

At this point, I'm putting together cases with tape and toothpicks because I don't quite understand what it is I truly should be debating as a traditional debater. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

-A

For "tape and toothpicks," I think you're doing rather well. One of the primary philosophical questions is whether the state is justified in coercing drug abusers into treatment for what, in many cases, is a "victimless crime." The resolution focuses on abuse, which may not imply that anyone is even suffering personally from the effects of the illegal drug. Most drug users, statistically, are not hardcore heroin addicts or tweaked-out meth-heads.

But what of those who are? Abetted or spurred on by the abuse, they can wreak havoc on society, and, via the social contract, we expect them to suffer, and society to respond to their crimes with fitting punishment.

But it's not so simple: even a public health approach can be coercive, as doctors take on the role of law enforcers, infringing on liberties without strict guidelines to limit their power. At least in the criminal justice system, you have an adversarial framework meant to protect the rights of the accused. When it comes to the "soft power" of public health, the experts always seem to win.

I agree that there is a strong element of either-side-can-use-the-same-framework, but, honestly, that's often true of LD resolutions, the most recent nuclear weapons resolution being a perfect example.

Anonymous said...

Jim,

I noticed you mentioned drug courts as a matter of criminal justice. Is there any way for the negative to include drug courts in his advocacy, and if so, how?

Drug court (Wikipedia has a decent summary), a relatively modern invention, is a great way to focus a balance Neg, in which you argue that criminal justice and public health officials need to join forces. Mandatory treatment with improved recidivism rates: what's not to love?

could public health officials quarantine drug abusers?

1. Let's say that a ranking public health official decides that abuse of illegal drugs is a literal epidemic.

2. How do you contain an epidemic? By quarantine, of course.

3. So the official decides to have drug abusers quarantined in rehab until clean, and, more important, no longer able to spread the mental and emotional virus of addiction.

4. Would that pass muster in a free society? If not, why not?

5. Would it fulfill the affirmative burden of the November-December 2010 LD resolution?

Added: Lest you think it's too far afield, consider the fact that anti-drug vaccines are within the realm of the plausible. So why not take it a step further?

thoughts about the illegal drugs resolution

The Nov/Dec LD resolution for 2010, just in case you forgot:

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

1. Recognize that the resolution isn't just about marijuana. An affirmative that focuses exclusively on pot is not sufficiently affirming--unless able to warrant the exclusive focus. (On the other hand, it's not just about meth or heroin, either. Sorry, Neg.)

2. How much the debate concerns "the real world" is a central question. Do we look at illegal drug abuse policies around the globe? Every nation seems to have its own approach to drug abuse, so it's difficult to ascertain impacts (for those who argue largely in those terms). What if we focus on the United States, as some debaters like to do? How many of the impacts are due to prohibition?

3. Does the Aff have to advocate for some form of legalization? Is "decriminalization" sufficient? Or can the Neg argue that full-scale legalization is a Negative stance, since it would negate the existence of "illegal drugs?"

4. The "balance Neg" approach seems fruitful. A coercive mechanism, via the criminal justice system, to force illegal drug abusers into rehab, combined with a public health approach.

5. Is it a kritik to say "neither?" Public health is itself coercive, as the body politic seeks further control over the body human. (If you hear echoes of Foucault, you're in the right hallway.) Imagine the possibility of vaccinating children (or adults) against drug abuse. Soon, you may not have to imagine it.

6. Statistics on drug abuse are probably useful and reliable, but I'd be cautious with some of the "facts" about drugs, which are not only controversial (due in some cases to a lack of research compounded by the drugs' very illegality), but subject to dizzying amounts of spin, by prohibitionists and legalizers alike.

7. If I were the Aff, I would stay away from the utilitarian argument altogether, arguing instead from a rights-based perspective. The criminal justice system can already handle the societal harms caused by drug abusers--DUIs, thefts, etc.--because they're harms regardless. (We can punish someone for driving while stoned, just like we punish someone for driving drunk. The law even punishes public intoxication. Same for negligent behavior.) The point is, if we don't accept a utilitarian justification of punishment--deterrence--then we have no good reason to criminalize getting high. Even if the law deters it.

8. Drug abuse isn't drug trafficking or possession... or is it? If I were on the Aff, I might argue for a narrow definition of drug abuse, and then show that only an Orwellian police state can successfully criminalize being high. For the Neg, I'd argue that outlawing trafficking or possession is a / the legitimate way to make drug abuse a matter of criminal justice--only through an indirect route.

9. Is there any compelling reason for why alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't? If you have one, please share it in the comments. Even looking through the government's "Marijuana Myths and Facts," I'm struggling to find relevant distinction.

10. Do us all a favor and don't use any pot jokes in your case. Thanks.

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

The NFL Lincoln Douglas debate resolution for November / December has been released:

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

It raises all kinds of interesting questions.

Why do we criminalize certain bad behaviors, but not others? When it comes to illegal drugs, who chooses what's legal--alcohol, tobacco, caffeine--and what's illegal? What can we safely assume about the criminal justice system (or the society) in question? What would a public health response look like? Does prohibition lead inexorably to a War on Drugs? What exactly constitutes "abuse of illegal drugs?" Would drugging someone else be a public health matter if the resolution were affirmed? And who makes the decision to decriminalize drugs--do we use democratic methods? Listen to the experts? What if no consensus can be found? Who has an interest in preserving the status quo? In what ways might prohibition increase the problems of drug abuse? And, from a critical perspective, what about a libertarian stance that says neither option presented by the resolution is valid--that drugs should be a matter of individual choice, and not the State's concern?

John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" offers a good access point for someone unsure of where to begin. You can also bet that utilitarianism will be a popular position, especially for Affirmatives trying to link any kind of prohibition to the War on Drugs.

This should be interesting. As a person who, over time, has come to believe that the American drug war is a tragedy, my inclination is to see the resolution as tough for the Negative to win. I guess we'll see. Regardless, it's a fantastic resolution from an educational perspective--there's a lot of hype, misinformation, and propaganda to sift through, on all sides.

More links, analysis, and observations to come. As always, share your questions and ideas in the comments--they're what make this site so useful for so many!

Added 10/7: Some thoughts about both sides of the resolution.

Added 10/13: One of my PuFo debaters got me thinking: could a public health official quarantine drug abusers?

Added 10/19: Another attempt to cut to the core of the resolution in an LD mailbag.

Added 10/22: Some links to older material on retributive justice.

Added 10/25: Value and criterion pairs.

Added 10/31: What's the most destructive drug?

Added 11/2: A couple links from the IDPC. The first: examining countries that use the death penalty for drug offenses. The second: a policy paper encouraging a treatment-based approach.

Added 11/7: I discuss some cross-examination strategies for this resolution.

Added 11/9: I write about definitions and uniqueness in an LD mailbag.

Added 11/10: A public health effort to warn students away from drugs by having them feel the damaged organs of deceased drug addicts. "This is your brain on drugs" taken to a whole new palpable level.

Added 11/11: Slate magazine's piece about Vancouver BC's "harm reduction" efforts is well worth reading. It's perhaps the continent's most coordinated--and controversial--public health approach.

Added 11/16: I discuss alternative approaches to legalization on the Affirmative. The upshot: you may be able to argue for full legalization and still be resolutional.

Added 11/21: Taking a break from resolution-specific blogging, I offer general advice about countering The Spread.

Added 11/22: Considering civil commitment as an Aff justification.