Ethnographic Study: The War On Drug Policy
Essay drawing on ethnographic studies on drug use, critically discuss the propositions for drug policy outlined by the global commission on drug policy.
Introduction.
All around the world there has been a marked increase in drug production, trafficking and usage. The war on drugs initialised in 1971 by Richard Nixon had a primary objective to stop drug use altogether. Weatherburn, D. (2001). Reports the war on drugs has been a failure in its own rights. People still use drugs.
The global commission on drugs has put forward a new set of recommendations to help reduce the harmful effects of drug taking and the illicit drug trade.
Firstly, a short review of the current reasons why the war on drugs has failed will be completed. Then using ethnographic drug studies drawn from several different sources, this essay will …show more content…
critically discuss each of the recommendations put forward by the global commission on drugs, specifically focusing on why these recommendations have been made and what effects they hope to have on the current illicit drug trade. Finalised with a conclusion from the arguments made.
Has the war on drugs failed?
The war on drugs is a failure in its own rights.
Drug use and trafficking is still rising despite the majority of law enforcements effort being aimed at drug users. According to Miron, A.J. and Waldock, K. (2010). An estimated $41.3 billion would be saved from enforcement and incarnation costs if illicit drugs for personal use were decriminalised. Enforcement is also aimed towards users rather than organised criminals, which massively undermines users’ health and safety and human rights. It further fuels crime by increasing drug prices making it more attractive for potential criminals and harder for users to buy encouraging them to commit crimes. The unstable, vulnerable environments created by unregulated drug markets are easily exploited by drug producers and undermines economies. According to Kitchen, N. (2012). the war on drugs has been an ongoing failure yet it is still been allowed to continue so this essay will discuss the recommendations put forward by the global commission on drugs and what outcomes they will have on the harmful effects of illicit drugs. The recommendations made by the Global Commission on Drugs (2014).
are
Put peoples health and safety first
End the criminalization and incarceration of people that use drugs
Refocus enforcement responses to drug trafficking and organised crime
Ensure access to essential medicines and pain control
Regulate drug markets to put governments in control
Critical Discussion
Put peoples health and safety first
Current methods of law enforcement are targeted mainly at the end users of drugs. The users that are addicted and solely purchase drugs for personal use. They look at the outcomes of policing such as amounts seized or arrests made, rather than looking at the processes used to reduce the harmful effects of drug use. Bourgeois, P and Schoenberg, J. (2009). Witnessed the positive effects of numerous different approaches to reducing the associated risk of drug use. These included mobile abscess clinics, mobile methadone clinics and mobile psychiatric clinics all attended by non-judgemental staff that saw the user as an individual requiring treatment. They also noted that the current way of approaching drug users created a permanent social underclass, leaving these users vulnerable to police harassment, judgemental or ineffective rehab treatments and poor medical support. The cost of alternative preventative treatments such as mobile abscess clinics are less expensive than the inevitable outcome of many users having to attend an emergency room at a later date. It has been suggested through this study that ongoing support, preventative treatments and understanding medical staff have a higher success rate in helping individuals become rehabilitated and stay rehabilitated and are less expensive than the current punitive ways of approaching the problem. If this is the case, when evidence suggests a more cost effective and successful method is available, why is this current system still continuing? According to Dixon, D & Maher, L. (2009). drug users are aware of the risks associated with sharing needles, however with current regulation making it illegal to carry IUD’s, police will target known drug users and confiscate or ask needles to be destroyed with the idea that this will stop the user injecting drugs. Dixon and Maher (2009) observed that all this actually did was put the drug user in a position where they would expose themselves to numerous and highly dangerous blood borne diseases by sharing needles with other users. It appears even the risk of contracting HIV was still not a deterrent from injecting drugs. It appears the intention behind confiscating or destroying needles is to deter drug use, but is this the real motivation? If a current system actually indirectly promotes the sharing of needles and doesn’t offer the appropriate support, how can it be regarded as a system that reduces the harm drugs create? It doesn’t. The current system is focused on zero tolerance regarding drugs which creates an environment of stigmatisation and extremely unsafe injectable use toward a group of people that are already extremely vulnerable. A system is needed that stops the incarceration and criminalization of drug users.
End the criminalization and incarceration of people that use drugs
According to Lester Grinspoon, M.D. & James B. Bakalar, J.D. (1994). In the United States alone over 1 million people are incarcerated for personal possession of drugs on a yearly basis. What has this done to rate of people using illegal drugs or the amount of drugs produced? According to Bourgeois, P. and Schoenberg, J. (2009) “Opiate withdrawal symptoms are undisputedly painful and they merit medical treatment without stigma.” Is prison the best place to get treatment for withdrawal? Is there better support during incarceration than outside of prison? According to Shannon, G., Sharon, M. (2009). There are many negative factors connected to withdrawal during incarceration. These include illegal seeking solutions from other inmates, inmates purposefully hurting themselves to receive pain medication, addiction to other drugs like muscle relaxants or alcohol and withdrawal of methadone. Many individuals reported on knowing they were going to be re-incarcerated due to a violation would prepare by reducing their own methadone levels before going to prison because the medical support in prison did not provide appropriate levels of methadone to be effective from methadone withdrawal. This study also suggested that withdrawal itself was seen as another form of punishment whilst incarcerated. Is this an effective way to rehabilitate users? Some individuals did view incarceration as an opportunity to withdraw accepting the obvious uncomfortable side effects as inevitable. Some individuals felt this way so strongly that they would admit to further crimes that they had not committed to increase their stay in prison, seeing this as the only way to regain some control back into their lives. Is this a positive outcome? Yes, the individual is using prison as an opportunity to regain control over their addiction, but if they are only experiencing this control during incarceration surely this says more about the failings of the current system of support outside of prison. How is this person really rehabilitated and in control of their life, if they are only in control when they are incarcerated? This suggests the individual is only postponing proper rehabilitation and live in fear of becoming addicted again because of the lack of effective support outside of prison. Bourgeois, P. and Schoenberg, J. (2009), report incarceration creates a permanent underclass with a criminal record making it harder for convicted users to get normal jobs and return to normality outside of incarceration. How does this improve addicts’ lives? Does this create a cycle of addiction and crime? The answer is refocusing enforcement efforts to where it can make a difference.
Refocus enforcement responses to drug trafficking and organised crime
Current drug laws focus on low level participants associated with the drug trade. TNI/WOLA drug reform project. (2010). took video testimonials from people directly affected by the current way the war on drugs approaches the drug problems. Repeatedly the report suggests that low level dealers often in economically crisis are sentenced in the same way as high end traffickers, rapists and murderers are. With unnecessarily prolonged pre-trial adjournments, human rights are severely violated and leave a devastating effect on their families and communities left on the outside. If certain individuals chose drug involvement as a way to provide financial support to their families, how does incarceration change this problem? It provides further distress and worry and could possibly lead to other family members assuming the same illegal drug trade to help alleviate their position. Drug production and trafficking thrive in areas of social economic turmoil, where many participants have very little other choices than to choose a life in drug production. According to the UNODC 2010 world drug report, (2011), Afghanistan is the world’s number 1 producer and exporter of heroin, with raw material being over 35% of the country’s GDP. According to UNODC, Drug use in Afghanistan, (2009). A survey where drug users, drug users’ families and the communities were interviewed the majority of people were affected by drug use or production and with the increased likelihood that after using drugs they would be directly involved in the production and movement of heroin. The trend through all these studies suggest that the people affected most by the war the drugs are the people that through extreme poverty or addiction have very few other choices than the be involved with the drug trade. These are also the people that are incarcerated and punished which has little to no effect on the production and trafficking of these drugs, purely because there is always someone else who is desperate that will take their place. This report shows an increase in the production of heroin even despite the efforts of the war on drugs. This suggests that the current methods used are not effective. How can they be if more and more people are being incarcerated yet more and more drugs are being produced? Efforts focused on convicting the criminals who make the substantial profits would have greater effect on drug production. But where does this leave the individuals that rely on the drug trade to make money to support their families? What measures would be put in place to help support the people at the bottom that have no other way to make money? Without the conflict of drugs and violence in a community, what steps need to be put in place to ensure that another drug “boss” doesn’t take their place? The answer could be drug regulation.
Regulate drug markets to put governments in control
By accepting that drugs will always exist and will always be used, then the regulation of drug markets by local governments seems like an appropriate and effective way to manage drug use. If a more targeted effort is made to eliminate organised crime and drug cartels, what will it be replaced with? Regulation and decriminalising drugs can help reduce the harmful effects of drugs within a community by allowing governments to take control of something that is effectively unstoppable. As previously discussed, no amount of stringent punishment or associated health risks can or will deter a drug user or an individual involved with drugs if it means they can support their family or themselves. By focusing on regulation and legalising governments can look at the real side effects of drug use and reduce social and individual harm. Several countries have already tried and successfully seen results from the decimalisation of personal drugs. According to the CATO report, one of the biggest fears surrounding legalisation and decimalisation is that there will be a marked increase in drug use or has there been an increase in drug tourism. This study shows that in nearly all measureable meaningful effects of decriminalization have been positive. The number of users has declined and are much lower than countries that still have criminalization in effect, the number of drug related deaths has declined and the reported cases of HIV and AIDS has declined. This suggests that the laws in place to stop people using drugs, really have little to no effect as a deterrent, if this was the case then there would be an increase in usage once drugs were decriminalised. According to a study compiled by Van der Haar, J. (1996). Decimalization does not increase drug usage or increase drug tourism and has reduced crime. All the studies used in this essay, all agree that users are aware of the risks and when they can will choose the safest approach, in this case choosing a regulated retail outlet over a drug dealer. By taking away the profits from the dealers, the option to become a drug dealer becomes less appealing. Regulation also generates more income through VAT from coffee shops and saves money from incarceration and policing. Money that can then be used to help the reduction of violent crimes and to also support medical and rehabilitation centres.
Ensure access to essential medicines and pain control.
Throughout the world humans have a right to have the medicines they need and for treatment of acute pain. An ethnographic study completed by Clearly, J., Powell, R.A., Munene, G. et al. (2013).suggests that the use of opioids is stigmatized, limited access to treatment, medical staff lack education and there is tight legislation around the use of opioids. This can lead to families seeking their own form of illicit pain control and further fuelling criminal activity.
Conclusion
The main goal of the war on drugs was eradication of drug use completely and therefore reduce crime. Its zero tolerance agenda and unrealistic goal has made it a fail on many terms. Drug use and production still rises, despite the millions incarcerated, rising drug prices encourages more individuals to sell and produce and forces users to commit crimes and millions go without the appropriate medical attention required. A permanent social underclass has been created by heavy handed approaches to personal drug users, with incarceration and criminal records making it even harder for them regain control. Many successful trials and studies have taken place into the decriminalisation of drugs, all with positive outcomes related to use and reduced mortality and disease rates. The global commission on drugs provides a new approach to this problem with goals focused around improvement of personal and socio-economic life rather than stopping drug use altogether. It recognises that drug use is unstoppable and has therefore created recommendations on minimizing harmful side effects not eradication of drug use completely.
Bibliography
Bourgeois, P and Schoenberg, J. (2009). Righteous Dopefiend, Berkeley, University of California Press
Cleary, J., Powell, R.A., Munene, G., Mwangi-Powell, F.N., Luyirika, E., Kiyange, F., Merriman, A., Scholten, W., Radbruch, L., Torode, J., Cherny, N.I. (2013). Formulary availability and regulatory barriers to accessibility of opioids for cancer pain in Africa: a report from the Global Opioid Policy Initiative (GOPI). 24(11): 4-23 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt499.
Dixon, D & Maher, L. (1999). Law enforcement and harm minization in a street level drug market, policing and public health vol 39, issue 4
Global Commission on Drugs (2014). Retrieved from www.globalcommissionondrugs.org
Greenwald, G. (2009) drug decriminalization in portugal: lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies CATO press
Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock (2010). The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition, Washington, CATO Institute
Kitchen, N. (2012). Governing the war on drugs, LSE ideas. Retrieved from www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR014/SR-014-FULL-Lo-Ress.pdf p 4-7
LesterGrinspoon, M.D.& James B. Bakalar, J.D. (1994). The War on Drugs—A Peace Proposal, New England Journal of Medicine. 330 (5): 357–360. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199402033300513
Mitchell,S.G., Kelly, S.M., Brown, B.S., Reisinger, H.S, Peterson, J.A., Ruhf, A., Agar, M.H., Schwartz, R.P. (2009). Incarceration and opioid withdrawal: The experiences of methadone patients and out-of-treatment heroin users, J Psychoactive Drugs. 41(2): 145–152. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2009.10399907
TNI/WOLA Drug Law Reform Project, (2010). Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America. Retrieved from: www.druglawreform.info
UNODC world drug report, (2011). Retrieved from: https://publicintelligence.net/unodc-world-drug-report-2011
Weatherburn, D. (2001). Has the war on drugs failed?, Australian Journal of forensic science, 33(1), 15-21. doi: 10.1080/00450610109410809
Introduction.
All around the world there has been a marked increase in drug production, trafficking and usage. The war on drugs initialised in 1971 by Richard Nixon had a primary objective to stop drug use altogether. Weatherburn, D. (2001). Reports the war on drugs has been a failure in its own rights. People still use drugs.
The global commission on drugs has put forward a new set of recommendations to help reduce the harmful effects of drug taking and the illicit drug trade.
Firstly, a short review of the current reasons why the war on drugs has failed will be completed. Then using ethnographic drug studies drawn from several different sources, this essay will …show more content…
critically discuss each of the recommendations put forward by the global commission on drugs, specifically focusing on why these recommendations have been made and what effects they hope to have on the current illicit drug trade. Finalised with a conclusion from the arguments made.
Has the war on drugs failed?
The war on drugs is a failure in its own rights.
Drug use and trafficking is still rising despite the majority of law enforcements effort being aimed at drug users. According to Miron, A.J. and Waldock, K. (2010). An estimated $41.3 billion would be saved from enforcement and incarnation costs if illicit drugs for personal use were decriminalised. Enforcement is also aimed towards users rather than organised criminals, which massively undermines users’ health and safety and human rights. It further fuels crime by increasing drug prices making it more attractive for potential criminals and harder for users to buy encouraging them to commit crimes. The unstable, vulnerable environments created by unregulated drug markets are easily exploited by drug producers and undermines economies. According to Kitchen, N. (2012). the war on drugs has been an ongoing failure yet it is still been allowed to continue so this essay will discuss the recommendations put forward by the global commission on drugs and what outcomes they will have on the harmful effects of illicit drugs. The recommendations made by the Global Commission on Drugs (2014).
are
Put peoples health and safety first
End the criminalization and incarceration of people that use drugs
Refocus enforcement responses to drug trafficking and organised crime
Ensure access to essential medicines and pain control
Regulate drug markets to put governments in control
Critical Discussion
Put peoples health and safety first
Current methods of law enforcement are targeted mainly at the end users of drugs. The users that are addicted and solely purchase drugs for personal use. They look at the outcomes of policing such as amounts seized or arrests made, rather than looking at the processes used to reduce the harmful effects of drug use. Bourgeois, P and Schoenberg, J. (2009). Witnessed the positive effects of numerous different approaches to reducing the associated risk of drug use. These included mobile abscess clinics, mobile methadone clinics and mobile psychiatric clinics all attended by non-judgemental staff that saw the user as an individual requiring treatment. They also noted that the current way of approaching drug users created a permanent social underclass, leaving these users vulnerable to police harassment, judgemental or ineffective rehab treatments and poor medical support. The cost of alternative preventative treatments such as mobile abscess clinics are less expensive than the inevitable outcome of many users having to attend an emergency room at a later date. It has been suggested through this study that ongoing support, preventative treatments and understanding medical staff have a higher success rate in helping individuals become rehabilitated and stay rehabilitated and are less expensive than the current punitive ways of approaching the problem. If this is the case, when evidence suggests a more cost effective and successful method is available, why is this current system still continuing? According to Dixon, D & Maher, L. (2009). drug users are aware of the risks associated with sharing needles, however with current regulation making it illegal to carry IUD’s, police will target known drug users and confiscate or ask needles to be destroyed with the idea that this will stop the user injecting drugs. Dixon and Maher (2009) observed that all this actually did was put the drug user in a position where they would expose themselves to numerous and highly dangerous blood borne diseases by sharing needles with other users. It appears even the risk of contracting HIV was still not a deterrent from injecting drugs. It appears the intention behind confiscating or destroying needles is to deter drug use, but is this the real motivation? If a current system actually indirectly promotes the sharing of needles and doesn’t offer the appropriate support, how can it be regarded as a system that reduces the harm drugs create? It doesn’t. The current system is focused on zero tolerance regarding drugs which creates an environment of stigmatisation and extremely unsafe injectable use toward a group of people that are already extremely vulnerable. A system is needed that stops the incarceration and criminalization of drug users.
End the criminalization and incarceration of people that use drugs
According to Lester Grinspoon, M.D. & James B. Bakalar, J.D. (1994). In the United States alone over 1 million people are incarcerated for personal possession of drugs on a yearly basis. What has this done to rate of people using illegal drugs or the amount of drugs produced? According to Bourgeois, P. and Schoenberg, J. (2009) “Opiate withdrawal symptoms are undisputedly painful and they merit medical treatment without stigma.” Is prison the best place to get treatment for withdrawal? Is there better support during incarceration than outside of prison? According to Shannon, G., Sharon, M. (2009). There are many negative factors connected to withdrawal during incarceration. These include illegal seeking solutions from other inmates, inmates purposefully hurting themselves to receive pain medication, addiction to other drugs like muscle relaxants or alcohol and withdrawal of methadone. Many individuals reported on knowing they were going to be re-incarcerated due to a violation would prepare by reducing their own methadone levels before going to prison because the medical support in prison did not provide appropriate levels of methadone to be effective from methadone withdrawal. This study also suggested that withdrawal itself was seen as another form of punishment whilst incarcerated. Is this an effective way to rehabilitate users? Some individuals did view incarceration as an opportunity to withdraw accepting the obvious uncomfortable side effects as inevitable. Some individuals felt this way so strongly that they would admit to further crimes that they had not committed to increase their stay in prison, seeing this as the only way to regain some control back into their lives. Is this a positive outcome? Yes, the individual is using prison as an opportunity to regain control over their addiction, but if they are only experiencing this control during incarceration surely this says more about the failings of the current system of support outside of prison. How is this person really rehabilitated and in control of their life, if they are only in control when they are incarcerated? This suggests the individual is only postponing proper rehabilitation and live in fear of becoming addicted again because of the lack of effective support outside of prison. Bourgeois, P. and Schoenberg, J. (2009), report incarceration creates a permanent underclass with a criminal record making it harder for convicted users to get normal jobs and return to normality outside of incarceration. How does this improve addicts’ lives? Does this create a cycle of addiction and crime? The answer is refocusing enforcement efforts to where it can make a difference.
Refocus enforcement responses to drug trafficking and organised crime
Current drug laws focus on low level participants associated with the drug trade. TNI/WOLA drug reform project. (2010). took video testimonials from people directly affected by the current way the war on drugs approaches the drug problems. Repeatedly the report suggests that low level dealers often in economically crisis are sentenced in the same way as high end traffickers, rapists and murderers are. With unnecessarily prolonged pre-trial adjournments, human rights are severely violated and leave a devastating effect on their families and communities left on the outside. If certain individuals chose drug involvement as a way to provide financial support to their families, how does incarceration change this problem? It provides further distress and worry and could possibly lead to other family members assuming the same illegal drug trade to help alleviate their position. Drug production and trafficking thrive in areas of social economic turmoil, where many participants have very little other choices than to choose a life in drug production. According to the UNODC 2010 world drug report, (2011), Afghanistan is the world’s number 1 producer and exporter of heroin, with raw material being over 35% of the country’s GDP. According to UNODC, Drug use in Afghanistan, (2009). A survey where drug users, drug users’ families and the communities were interviewed the majority of people were affected by drug use or production and with the increased likelihood that after using drugs they would be directly involved in the production and movement of heroin. The trend through all these studies suggest that the people affected most by the war the drugs are the people that through extreme poverty or addiction have very few other choices than the be involved with the drug trade. These are also the people that are incarcerated and punished which has little to no effect on the production and trafficking of these drugs, purely because there is always someone else who is desperate that will take their place. This report shows an increase in the production of heroin even despite the efforts of the war on drugs. This suggests that the current methods used are not effective. How can they be if more and more people are being incarcerated yet more and more drugs are being produced? Efforts focused on convicting the criminals who make the substantial profits would have greater effect on drug production. But where does this leave the individuals that rely on the drug trade to make money to support their families? What measures would be put in place to help support the people at the bottom that have no other way to make money? Without the conflict of drugs and violence in a community, what steps need to be put in place to ensure that another drug “boss” doesn’t take their place? The answer could be drug regulation.
Regulate drug markets to put governments in control
By accepting that drugs will always exist and will always be used, then the regulation of drug markets by local governments seems like an appropriate and effective way to manage drug use. If a more targeted effort is made to eliminate organised crime and drug cartels, what will it be replaced with? Regulation and decriminalising drugs can help reduce the harmful effects of drugs within a community by allowing governments to take control of something that is effectively unstoppable. As previously discussed, no amount of stringent punishment or associated health risks can or will deter a drug user or an individual involved with drugs if it means they can support their family or themselves. By focusing on regulation and legalising governments can look at the real side effects of drug use and reduce social and individual harm. Several countries have already tried and successfully seen results from the decimalisation of personal drugs. According to the CATO report, one of the biggest fears surrounding legalisation and decimalisation is that there will be a marked increase in drug use or has there been an increase in drug tourism. This study shows that in nearly all measureable meaningful effects of decriminalization have been positive. The number of users has declined and are much lower than countries that still have criminalization in effect, the number of drug related deaths has declined and the reported cases of HIV and AIDS has declined. This suggests that the laws in place to stop people using drugs, really have little to no effect as a deterrent, if this was the case then there would be an increase in usage once drugs were decriminalised. According to a study compiled by Van der Haar, J. (1996). Decimalization does not increase drug usage or increase drug tourism and has reduced crime. All the studies used in this essay, all agree that users are aware of the risks and when they can will choose the safest approach, in this case choosing a regulated retail outlet over a drug dealer. By taking away the profits from the dealers, the option to become a drug dealer becomes less appealing. Regulation also generates more income through VAT from coffee shops and saves money from incarceration and policing. Money that can then be used to help the reduction of violent crimes and to also support medical and rehabilitation centres.
Ensure access to essential medicines and pain control.
Throughout the world humans have a right to have the medicines they need and for treatment of acute pain. An ethnographic study completed by Clearly, J., Powell, R.A., Munene, G. et al. (2013).suggests that the use of opioids is stigmatized, limited access to treatment, medical staff lack education and there is tight legislation around the use of opioids. This can lead to families seeking their own form of illicit pain control and further fuelling criminal activity.
Conclusion
The main goal of the war on drugs was eradication of drug use completely and therefore reduce crime. Its zero tolerance agenda and unrealistic goal has made it a fail on many terms. Drug use and production still rises, despite the millions incarcerated, rising drug prices encourages more individuals to sell and produce and forces users to commit crimes and millions go without the appropriate medical attention required. A permanent social underclass has been created by heavy handed approaches to personal drug users, with incarceration and criminal records making it even harder for them regain control. Many successful trials and studies have taken place into the decriminalisation of drugs, all with positive outcomes related to use and reduced mortality and disease rates. The global commission on drugs provides a new approach to this problem with goals focused around improvement of personal and socio-economic life rather than stopping drug use altogether. It recognises that drug use is unstoppable and has therefore created recommendations on minimizing harmful side effects not eradication of drug use completely.
Bibliography
Bourgeois, P and Schoenberg, J. (2009). Righteous Dopefiend, Berkeley, University of California Press
Cleary, J., Powell, R.A., Munene, G., Mwangi-Powell, F.N., Luyirika, E., Kiyange, F., Merriman, A., Scholten, W., Radbruch, L., Torode, J., Cherny, N.I. (2013). Formulary availability and regulatory barriers to accessibility of opioids for cancer pain in Africa: a report from the Global Opioid Policy Initiative (GOPI). 24(11): 4-23 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt499.
Dixon, D & Maher, L. (1999). Law enforcement and harm minization in a street level drug market, policing and public health vol 39, issue 4
Global Commission on Drugs (2014). Retrieved from www.globalcommissionondrugs.org
Greenwald, G. (2009) drug decriminalization in portugal: lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies CATO press
Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock (2010). The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition, Washington, CATO Institute
Kitchen, N. (2012). Governing the war on drugs, LSE ideas. Retrieved from www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR014/SR-014-FULL-Lo-Ress.pdf p 4-7
LesterGrinspoon, M.D.& James B. Bakalar, J.D. (1994). The War on Drugs—A Peace Proposal, New England Journal of Medicine. 330 (5): 357–360. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199402033300513
Mitchell,S.G., Kelly, S.M., Brown, B.S., Reisinger, H.S, Peterson, J.A., Ruhf, A., Agar, M.H., Schwartz, R.P. (2009). Incarceration and opioid withdrawal: The experiences of methadone patients and out-of-treatment heroin users, J Psychoactive Drugs. 41(2): 145–152. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2009.10399907
TNI/WOLA Drug Law Reform Project, (2010). Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America. Retrieved from: www.druglawreform.info
UNODC world drug report, (2011). Retrieved from: https://publicintelligence.net/unodc-world-drug-report-2011
Weatherburn, D. (2001). Has the war on drugs failed?, Australian Journal of forensic science, 33(1), 15-21. doi: 10.1080/00450610109410809