Activity 10- Dorm Room Dealers

When I first hear the term “drug dealer” I picture a very sketchy type of person who stays out public view. Typically, I view people who come from low socio-economic backgrounds that got into drug dealing as a sole way of making money. I also picture drug dealers as people who don’t take any regard in breaking various types of laws, such as robbery. I picture drug dealers as generally bad people. I think my view of drug dealers is more similar to the dealers in Cocaine Kids, rather than the dealers that are present in Dorm Room Dealers.

A. Rafik Mohamed and Erik D. Fritsvold conducted an ethnographic investigation that spanned over six years. They had to build relationships and trust with their dealers in order to secure interviews and gain the necessary access to physically observe drug transactions and the day-to-day activities of the dealers in the study. They gained entry into the community through peripheral membership. The network of drug dealers was almost entirely comprised of affluent current and former college students, and its members provided an array of illegal drugs o several colleges in Southern California.

The book, Dorm Room Dealers, definitely disproves my views of the stereotypical drug dealer. Mainly, because the study is of educated, usually white, college students of relative privilege. I would think that these types of people would be the consumers, if anything. The last thing I would think these types of people would be is a drug dealer. The book points out that the most widely commented on and ethically problematic outcome of the war on drugs has been the disproportionate negative impact these policies have had on poor and minority communities, particularly African American. African Americans make up one half of the prison population, more than 35% of all persons arrested for drug abuse violations and 45% of state prison inmates serving time for drugs. I think this is one of the main reasons why people usually view drug dealers as low class, minority people. These college students in the study come from well off families who can afford good lawyers, Additionally, as the book points out, law enforcement tends to look the other way. While the criminal justice system closely monitors the illegal activities of the poor, they simultaneously turn a blind eye to the activities carried out by the non-poor. The researchers even commented how they were taken aback by the lack of criminal justice and university administration attention paid to these college dealers, despite the brazenness, incompetence, and general dearth of street smarts that tended to characterize the dealers’ daily practices. This is also another thing that contradicts my view of what I picture when I think of drug dealers. Usually, I would think of drug dealers as having a lot of street smarts, using their best efforts to not get caught. I suppose the drug dealers that I typically think of do have to have a lot more caution than the college drug dealers since the criminal justice system turns a blind eye to the latter, which are virtually immune to law enforcement. Other aspect that contradicted my views of drug dealers was the college dealers’ motivations for selling drugs. Although some of the motivations are similar to what I would normally picture, others that contradicted my view included the spirit of capitalism, ego gratification and pursuit of status, and sneaky thrills of being a gangsta.

            Dorm Room Dealers definitely opened my eyes to the fact that there are several different types of drug dealers out there from all different kinds of backgrounds, and the stereotypical drug dealer image does not hold much merit. I know there is a college drug culture, but what I was surprised about was how much law enforcement and the universities turned the other way and did not do much to deter this type of criminal behavior.

Comparative Drug Policy Analysis

Australia’s alcohol policies may differ depending on the state, territory, or local area. In regards to age limits, any person under the age of 18 cannot buy, receive, or consume alcohol on a licensed premises. However, if they are in the presence of a parent or guardian, they are not in violation of alcohol laws. Additionally, in some states in Australia it is illegal to supply a person under the age of 18 with alcohol in a private home, unless there is a parent or guardian has given permission. This is referred to as secondary supply. (What is secondary supply? 2013) New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory all regulate secondary supply by law, while other states and territories do not. In this case, the minor drinking the alcohol is not in violation of the law, but the person who supplied the alcohol could be in violation if it is not their parent or guardian. Usually the penalty for the offence is in the form of a fine. (Drug law in Australia 2013)

In contrast, the minimum drinking age in the Untied States is 21 years of age. In addition, all states in the United States prohibit providing alcohol to minors under the age of 21. Some states may have limited exceptions under the circumstances of lawful employment, religious activities, or consent by a parent, guardian, or spouse. In cases where there is legal consumption of alcohol by persons younger than the age of 21, it is often limited to private locations. However, no state has an exception that permits anyone other than a family member to provide alcohol, such as a responsible adult. Social hosts are responsible for underage drinkers on property they own, lease, or control, whether or not they knowingly provided minors with alcohol. (Consumer Information. (n.d.)

In regards to amphetamines, the use of this drug is restricted in Australia. A medical doctor can only prescribe this drug, and only for medical purposes. Federal and state laws stipulate penalties for possessing, using, making, selling or driving under the influence of amphetamines without a prescription. Benzodiazepines, oxycodone, and methadone are examples of other drugs that are also illegal without a doctor prescription, as well as selling these drugs to another person. In regards to tobacco, federal and state laws do not allow the selling or supplying of tobacco to people under the age of 18. Additionally, it is illegal for people 18 years old and younger to purchase tobacco products. There are also laws that regulate and restrict how tobacco products are advertised, promoted and packaged; as well as laws and regulations restricting smoking in public areas and bans on smoking in cars with children. Examples of illegal drugs in Australia include, but are not limited to, cannabis, some synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, ecstasy, GHB, heroin, crystal meth, LSD, mephedrone, PCP, and PMA. In some states and territories, there are also laws that make the sale and possession of bongs and other smoking equipment illegal. Penalties for breaking laws in relation to alcohol and other drugs include fines, prison time, and taking away driving privileges. In reference to affects of drugs and drug laws in society, some areas in Australia have drug diversion programs that provide treatment and education to those with drug problems instead of placing them in the criminal justice system. (Drug law in Australia.)

In the United States, the Controlled Substances Act schedules all drugs in accordance to how and how much they are regulated. (DEA / Drug Scheduling. (n.d.) Amphetamines are listed as schedule II, as well as methamphetamine, oxycodone, and cocaine. Unlike Australia, benzodiazepines are schedule IV, meaning they are not highly regulated. GHB regulation is also different in the United States than Australia. Unless it is used as a date rape drug, the status of GHB is schedule III and is therefore, not illegal. In the United States, the selling of tobacco is also restricted. The age limit to purchase tobacco is also 18 years of age. Additionally, the FDA implemented rules that restrict the way tobacco companies can advertise and sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, especially those efforts that are designed to appeal to children and teens. (New FDA rules will greatly restrict tobacco advertising and sales. 2010) Like in Australia, Cannabis, synthetic cannabinoids, ecstasy, heroin, LSD, and PCP are also illegal drugs in the United States. In regards to treatment programs, the United States is currently more invested in sending people with drug offences into the criminal justice system, especially by implementing legislation such as the three strikes laws and mandatory sentencing. Legislation and drug enforcement policies like these have a profound effect on society and the population distributions in prisons.

As far as drug culture, Australia has the distinction of having the highest proportion of recreational drug users in the world. (Australia comes top of global list for recreational drug use in United Nation’s 2014 World Drug Report. 2014). According to statistics in the United Nations’ 2014 World Drug report, Australia led the world in the use of ecstasy, third in the world for the use of methamphetamines, and fourth in cocaine use. Addiction to prescribed or black-market opiates is ranked second only behind the United States. Additionally, ten percent of the working age population regularly uses cannabis. The major types of illicit drugs in Australia include amphetamines, cannabis cocaine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, pharmaceuticals, and steroids. Alcohol is the most recreationally used drug, while cannabis is the most used illicit drug. (Illicit drug types. 2011) As of June 2014, Australia was in the midst of an ice epidemic, similar to the crack cocaine epidemic of the United States. (Drugs like ice have Australia hooked. 2014) Like Australia, alcohol is the most used drug and marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance in the United States. (Media Guide. 2014) Australia and the United States have both similarities and differences in the drug laws and drug use in their countries, all of which affect the country and its citizens.

References

Carswell, A. (2014, July 7). Australia comes top of global list for recreational drug use in United Nation’s 2014 World Drug Report. Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/australia-comes-top-of-global-list-for-recreational-drug-use-in-united-nations-2014-world-drug-report/story-fni0cx12-1226979809971

Consumer Information. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0388-alcohol-laws-state

DEA / Drug Scheduling. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

Drug law in Australia. (2013, June 13). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/topics/drug-law-in-australia

Drugs like ice have Australia hooked. (2014, June 4). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.news.com.au/national/drugs-like-ice-have-australia-hooked/story-fncynjr2-1226942341808

Illicit drug types. (2011, April 12). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/drugs_alcohol/drug_types.html

Media Guide. (2014, September 1). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/media-guide/most-commonly-used-addictive-drugs

New FDA rules will greatly restrict tobacco advertising and sales. (2010, March 19). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031803004.html

What is secondary supply? (2013, June 1). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/fact-sheets/what-is-secondary-supply-web-fact-sheet-2

Activity 8- War on Drugs

Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs on June 17^th, 1971. At a press conference, Nixon named drug abuse as public enemy number one in the United States. In response to this problem, Nixon created the DEA and declared that we will wage an all-out war on drugs. Nixon creates the Special Office for Drug Abuse Prevention and Operation Golden Flow. Once Ford took office, the war began to become less important due to new issues. Public opinion started shifting toward punishment for drugs rather than treatment. Jimmy Carter took office and attempted to campaign for the decriminalization of drugs, but ended up reversing opinions on marijuana and making it a new target. During the Reagan era, the zero-tolerance movement came about and the drug advisor of the time stated that all illegal drugs are dangerous and treatment encourages use. Regan appropriated $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis and the creation of mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses  George H.W. Bush carried on the previous administrations policies, Bill Clinton increased the federal anti-drug budget ten fold, and George W. Bush oversaw the Rave Act, the Victory Act, and the Meth Project. Presently, Obama has promised not to prosecute medical marijuana use and has supported the fair sentencing act.

In my opinion, I do not think that we have fully lost the war on drugs; I think America is still fighting. However, I do think that it has taken the back burner to other political, social, and economic issues that citizens today see as more important. I think that America is on the verge of losing the war, especially with increased public want for the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana in particular. I don’t think that the United States or President Barack Obama see drug abuse as public enemy number one any longer, but the DEA that Nixon put in place is still relevant in today’s America. I support the war on drugs and I believe that it has provided definite gains for American society.

One gain of fighting the war on drugs is that it prevents the potential increase in the amount of drug users and addicts. I think if the war were completely lost, it would be detrimental to society. For example, I think that even if medical marijuana is the only type of drug legalized, this can lead to the rise of increased recreational use and ultimately lead to another serious issue like the prescription pill epidemic.

Another gain of the war on drugs is that it can protect the young people in society and prevent them from experimenting with drugs and becoming a life long addict. If drugs are decriminalized and become more accessible, young people would be more inclined to begin use. I think it would be similar to young people and their use of alcohol. Young people everywhere use alcohol, despite the fact that it is illegal for their age to use it. Because it is not illegal for everyone, it seems more of an acceptable thing to do than drugs. For example, when I was young, I felt that it was more acceptable to drink alcohol than to try and experiment with marijuana and other drugs. If marijuana and other drugs become legal, I think teenagers today will have the same mindset.

One additional gain that the war on drugs has provided is the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency and agencies that fight against drugs. This agency, and others, have significantly decreased the amount of drugs on the streets and have protected America. Although there is a definite presence of drugs, these agencies have made an impact and reduced the amounts of drugs and the crimes associated with drug trafficking.

Activity 7- UF Law Review’s “Legalize Marijuana? A Conversation with the Experts”

The UF Law Review’s “Legalize Marijuana? A Conversation with the Experts” was a very interesting panel forum that provided insight to the debate on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Both sides of the issue provided very good arguments and supporting details for their view on the subject.

Panelists in favor of legalization argued that as of 2012 the public opinion on legalizing marijuana increased to 52%. This shows that society is becoming more and more accepting of this drug and its potential benefits. Perhaps the strongest argument for the legalization of medical marijuana is the fact that it can be used as a pain reliever for those with severe pain and those suffering from cancer and other chronic illnesses. Additionally, as far as medical benefits, there are a number of studies show marijuana is as effective at increasing food intake as the drug Marinol. This can be very helpful in cancer patients. Another argument for the legalization of marijuana is that medication does not have to be effective for everything in order for it to have a benefit. During the panel there were several more arguments in favor of legalizing marijuana. The panelists in favor of legalization argued that abuse potential should not be a criteria when considering whether or not marijuana should be moved down from schedule I due to the fact that drugs such as amphetamines have abuse potential and are not schedule I drugs. Additionally, it was argued that although dosage can be varied and higher in marijuana, it does not mean people will consume more of the drug. It would just mean that one would smoke less. The example that was used was that one wouldn’t drink a stiff drink the same as beer. Proponents argued that scientific literature is biased and that we can predict how people respond to drugs. A proponent for legalization stated that it is hard to project if it is good or bad for public health. One final point of importance was that changes made in regards to legalizing marijuana do not have to be permanent.

As far as prohibition goes, the panelists argued that marijuana should remain a Schedule 1 drug because it has a high potential for abuse, has no medical purpose, and does not have a proven safety standard. In support of this argument, the DSM-5 was sighted in reference to the cannabis abuse disorder. As far as the use of marijuana for medical purposes, there is not enough research and data to back this up by FDA standards. Panelists also argued that potency of the drug is an issue and each strain can differ. Another argument is that researchers do not have any information on long-term safety consequences of the drug and not every person reacts to drugs in the same way. There are several physical effects that marijuana use can have on people, especially the young. These include lower IQ by an average of 8 points, mental disorders, anxiety, and increased risk of testicular cancer. Legalization proponents argue that alcohol and tobacco have very severe negative health concerns and have high-risk potential, so why should marijuana be held to a higher standard? In response to this, those in favor of marijuana prohibition argue that this does not justify adding yet another substance to the legal market just because the others are legal. This could lead to yet another drug epidemic problem in society like the prescription pill epidemic. Proponents of prohibition pointed out that places that have dispensaries have more adult recreational use of marijuana. Additionally, the legalization of medical marijuana would increase use in younger people. When the drug is perceived as more dangerous it is less likely to be used. Also, people putting money into promoting and advocating the safety for marijuana far outnumber those against it. There is team of people that hide and suppress evidence against marijuana. As far as public policy, it was pointed out in the forum that there are three levels of government- federal, state, and local.  The legalization of marijuana in certain states causes issues due to the fact that it conflicts with federal policy. This discrepancy between state/local and federal government is one of concern because it causes tension between the two levels of government. In addition, it can cause tension between local and state governments if their laws differ from one another.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed watching this lecture and listening to the different sides of the argument. It really opened my mind to both sides of the issue and gave me a better idea of the consequences and benefits legalizing marijuana.